20141132 All Versions_Record of Decision_20130806

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
RECORD OF DECISION
United States Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
North Carolina Department of Transportation
US 1 from Sandhill Road (SR 1971) to Marston Road (SR 1001)
Richmond County
Federal -Aid Project Number NHF -1(1)
State Project No. 8.T580501
WBS No. 34437.1.1
T.I.P. Project R -2501
Documentation prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act
42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)
US Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
North Carolina Department of Transportation
JUNE 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0
DECISION
1
2.0
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
2
2.1 Basis for Selection
3
2.2 Description of Selected Alternative
3
2.3 Cost Estimates
4
2.4 Summary of Impacts
4
3.0
SECTION 4(f)
6
4.0
MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM
7
4.1 Relocations
7
4.2 Historic Architecture
7
4.3 Archaeology
8
4.4 Noise Impacts
8
4.5 Natural Resource Impacts
9
4.5.1 Wetlands /Surface Waters
9
4.5.2 Endangered Species Act Protected Species
10
5.0
MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
11
6.0
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
11
7.0
COMMENTS ON THE FEIS
11
7.1 Federal Agencies
12
7.2 State Agencies
13
7.3 Public Comments
21
8.0
REVISIONS TO THE FEIS
25
8.1 Typical Sections
25
8.2 Environmental Commitments
26
8.3 Hazardous Materials
26
9.0
CONCLUSION
28

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 — Summary of Impacts 5
Table 2 — Preliminary Structures for Major Stream Crossings 6
Table 3 — Federally Protected Species Listed for Richmond County 11
Table 4 — Hazardous Waste Sites and Risk Assessment 27
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 — Project Location Map
Figure 2 — Roadway Typical Sections
Figures 3.1 -3.7 — Preferred Alternative
Figure 4 — Potential Barrier Locations
Figure 5 — Hazardous Waste Sites
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A — Project Commitments
Appendix B — Comments on the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Other
Correspondence

1.0 DECISION
This Record of Decision (ROD) identifies the selected alternative for the proposed US 1
improvements from Sandhill Road (SR 1971) to Marston Road (SR 1001) in Richmond County,
North Carolina (see Figure 1). In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) and the requirements set forth by the Council of Environmental Policy (CEQ)
(40 CFR 1505.2), this ROD identifies :1) the selected alternative; 2) all alternatives considered
by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the factors that were considered during
evaluation of the alternatives; 3) measures adopted to avoid and minimize harm; 4) monitoring
and enforcement programs for the implementation of mitigation measures; and 5) comments on
the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).
The proposed action addresses the US 1 improvements from Sandhill Road (SR 1971) to
Marston Road (SR 1001) in Richmond County. The proposed project will improve US 1 from
Sandhill Road (SR 1971) south of Rockingham to Marston Road (SR 1001) in Marston, a
distance of about 19 miles. Approximately 14 miles will be on new location, and about five
miles of existing US 1 will be widened. From Sandhill Road (SR 1971) to about one and a half
miles north of Fox Road (SR 1606), US 1 is proposed to be a four -lane, median divided roadway
with full control of access along the new location part and partial control of access on the
widening part. From one and a half miles north of Fox Road (SR 1606) to Cognac Road
(SR 1605), a four -lane, median divided roadway with partial control of access is being proposed.
A five -lane section with no control of access is proposed along existing US 1 from Cognac Road
(SR 1605) to the existing five -lane section at Marston Road (SR 1001). Interchanges are planned
at the US 74 Bypass, Airport Road (SR 1966), US 74 Business, and Wiregrass Road (SR 1640)/
County Home Road (SR 1624). See Figure 2 for typical sections.
Proiect Need
US 1 serves as an important north -south corridor in the Piedmont region between the South
Carolina state line and two major interstates, I -40 and I -85. This part of US 1 is located along
Strategic Highway Corridor 34 and is an important route for mobility and connectivity between
I -73/ I -74 in Rockingham and I -40 in Raleigh. Construction of a US 1 Bypass east of
Rockingham, in addition to improvements to existing US 1, has been identified as primary goals
in local planning documents.
In the project vicinity, approximately 12 miles of US 1 exists as a two -lane rural highway with
speed limits ranging from 50 to 55 miles per hour (mph). On each side of Rockingham,
approximately five miles of US 1 exists as four or five lanes with 35 to 50 mph speed limits.
The remaining 1.5 -mile portion of US 1 is a two -lane urban street that passes through the
Rockingham Central Business District and has 20 to 35 mph speed limits, multiple intersections,
and traffic signals.
Record of Decision, US 1 Improvements 1

Some two -lane portions of US 1 near the downtown area currently operate at or near their traffic
carrying capacity. In the future, traffic operations will continue to deteriorate on the two -lane
sections of US 1 near the downtown area due to low travel speeds, numerous access points, and
traffic signals. A more efficient travel route is needed to reduce US 1 through traffic in
downtown and improve mobility along the US 1 corridor. See Section 1.8, Capacity, Safety, and
Roadway Deficiencies of the FEIS for more information on levels of service and existing / future
No -Build conditions.
These conditions are not consistent with the long -term vision of the US 1 strategic highway
corridor. The vision plan designates this portion of US 1 as a future freeway with high mobility,
full control of access, speeds of at least 55 mph, and a minimum four -lane divided facility.
Project Purpose
The primary purposes of the project include the following: reducing travel time; reducing
congestion in downtown Rockingham by diverting through traffic and truck traffic from local
streets; and improving mobility on the designated US 1 Strategic Highway Corridor.
2.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Alternatives considered in the Environmental Impact Statement included the No -Build
Alternative, Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternative, Mass Transit Alternative,
Improve Existing NC 177 Alternative, Improve Existing US 1 Alternative, and 27 preliminary
alternative corridors. As discussed in the FEIS, only four alternatives were selected for further
study. These are Alternative Corridor Nos. 7, 14, 21, and 24.
Alternative 7 — This corridor begins south of Osborne Road (SR 1104) and passes north of the
Loch Haven Golf Course and south of the Richmond County Airport. It intersects
US 74 Business near Pineleigh Avenue (SR 1670). After intersecting with US 74 Business, the
alignment continues northeast and intersects Wiregrass Road (SR 1640) near Washington Street
Extension (SR 1643) where it then follows the existing alignment of US 1. From the intersection
with US 1, the remaining portion of Alternative Corridor No. 7 consists of widening existing
US 1 to either a four -lane divided expressway or a five -lane facility to its northern terminus at
Marston Road (SR 1001). This corridor is approximately 19.2 miles in length.
Alternative 14 - This corridor alignment is identical to Corridor No. 7 with the exception that
the proposed alignment, after crossing Osborne Road (SR 1104) near the southern terminus of
the project, would take a more easterly route and pass south, rather than north, of the Loch
Haven Golf Course before continuing northeast to intersect with US 74 Bypass in the same
location as Corridor No. 7. Corridor No. 14 is approximately 19.1 miles in length.
Alternative 21 (Preferred) — The alignment for this alternative follows the same alignment as
Alternative Corridor No. 7 until its intersection with US 74 Business. At this point, the
Record of Decision, US 1 Improvements 2

alignment travels northeast to cross over both Wiregrass Road (SR 1640) and County Home
Road (SR 1624) near the location of their intersection and just west of Richmond Primary
School. After crossing County Home Road (SR 1624), the alignment for Corridor No. 21
remains on new location before turning north and intersecting US 1 north of Fox Road
(SR 1606). Corridor No. 21 is approximately 19.3 miles in length.
Alternative 24 — The alignment for Corridor No. 24 is identical to Corridor No. 21 with the only
difference being that this alternative travels south of Loch Haven Golf Course rather than north
of the golf course. Corridor No. 24 is approximately 19.1 miles in length.
2.1 Basis for Selection
Based on the analyses presented in the DEIS, the comments received from circulation of the
DEIS, Public Hearing comments, and the analyses in the SDEIS, Alternative 21 was chosen by
the Section 404 / NEPA Merger Project Team on February 15, 2001 as the Least
Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) for the US 1 Bypass and
Improvement Project. Alternatives 14 and 24 were eliminated from further consideration since
they have more impacts to the natural environment than Alternatives 7 and 21. Alternative 7 was
eliminated from further consideration since it has more relocations than Alternative 21.
2.2 Description of Selected Alternative
The proposed project will improve US 1 from Sandhill Road (SR 1971) south of Rockingham to
Marston Road (SR 1001) in Marston, a distance of about 19 miles (see Figures 3.1 through 3.7).
Approximately 14 miles will be on new location, and about five miles of existing US 1 will be
widened. From Sandhill Road (SR 1971) to about one and a half miles north of Fox Road
(SR 1606), US 1 is proposed to be a four -lane, median divided roadway with full control of
access along the new location part and partial control of access on the widening part. From one
and a half miles north of Fox Road (SR 1606) to Cognac Road (SR 1605), a four -lane, median
divided roadway with partial control of access is being proposed. A five -lane section with no
control of access is proposed along existing US 1 from Cognac Road (SR 1605) to the existing
five -lane section at Marston Road (SR 1001). Interchanges are planned at the US 74 Bypass,
Airport Road (SR 1966), US 74 Business, and Wiregrass Road (SR 1640)/ County Home Road
(SR 1624).
During the development of the FEIS, several revisions were made to the preferred alternative.
• A different type of interchange is planned at the US 74 Bypass to reduce the impacts to
properties and the environment (see Figure 3.2). The modified interchange design
reduced the total interchange area by 40 acres. It reduced wetland impacts by nearly
nine acres, pond impacts by three acres, and stream impacts by 2,100 feet.
Record of Decision, US 1 Improvements 3

• A new interchange is proposed with Wiregrass Road/ County Home Road to improve the
connections between NC 177, US 74 Business, and US 1 near Rockingham
(see Figure 3.4).
• East of County Home Road, the corridor was shifted to reduce the effects on streams and
wetlands in a protected conservation easement (see Figure 3.5).
2.3 Cost Estimates
The total project cost is estimated to be $260,440,000. This includes $43,180,000 for right of
way acquisition and utilities, $212,510,000 for construction, and $4,750,000 for mitigation.
2.4 Summary of Impacts
The impacts associated with Alternative 21 are shown in Table 1. The impacts reflect the latest
preliminary design of the project as described in the FEIS and include the impacts from
Alternative Corridor No. 21, as described in the DEIS (June 1999), combined with the extension
of the corridor to include the additional 3.7 miles of widening as evaluated in the SDEIS.
Record of Decision, US 1 Improvements 4

fable 1: Summary of lmnacts
* The Atlantic sturgeon was not included in the FEIS.
* *Noise impacts to 167 receivers include 165 residences, one business, and one campground.
Record of Decision, US 1 Improvements 5
re
Length (miles)
--
Along New Location
14.0
Along Existing US 1
5.3
Total
19.3
Interchanges
4
Grade Separations
5
Relocations
--
Residential
97
Business
8
Non Profit
0
Farms
0
Total
105
Acreage Required
--
Undisturbed / Forested Land
483.5
Agricultural Land
76.0
Maintained / Disturbed Land
310.9
Successional Land
91.4
Total
961.8
Prime /Statewide Important Farmland (acres)
345.2
Water Resource Impacts
--
Stream Crossings
16
Stream Impacts (feet)
3,717
Open Water Impacts (acres)
2.6
Wetland Impacts (acres)
40.5
Flood lain Impacts (acres)
9.8
Endangered Species
--
Michaux's sumac
May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Red - cockaded woodpecker
No Effect
Rough-leaved loosestrife
No Effect
Shortnose sturgeon
No Effect
Atlantic sturgeon*
No Effect
Historic Property Impacts
0
Archaeological Sites
0
Section 4(f) Resources
1
Noise Impacts
167 **
Hazardous Material Sites (excluding USTs)
0
Costs (in millions S)
--
Right of Way and Utilities
$43.18
Construction
$212.51
Wetland Mitigation
$2.85
Stream Mitigation Cost
$1.90
Total
$260.44
* The Atlantic sturgeon was not included in the FEIS.
* *Noise impacts to 167 receivers include 165 residences, one business, and one campground.
Record of Decision, US 1 Improvements 5

Based on a preliminary hydraulic study and a review of stream crossings, nine stream crossings
require structures that are greater than 60 inches wide. All other crossings can be contained in
smaller pipes or culverts. The proposed structure locations are shown on Figures 3.1
through 3.7. Preliminary sizes are shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Preliminary Structures for Major Stream Crossings
Structure
No
Stream
Existing Structure
Preliminary Structure
1
Baggetts Creek
1 Span, 31' Bridge
(3) 10'x 8'x 350' RCBC*
2
Baggetts Creek
(2) 10'x 6' RCBC*
Retain Existing
3
Unnamed Tributary
to Speeds Creek
- --
(3) 10'x 8'x 250' RCBC*
4
Watery Branch
- --
(2) 9'x Tx 240' RCBC*
5
Solomons Creek
- --
(1) Tx 6'x 1,340' RCBC*
6
Solomons Creek
(3) 9' x 5' RCBC*
(3) 9'x 5'x50'RCBC*
Extension
7
South Prong Falling
Creek
- --
Dual 450' x 38' Bridges
8
Falling Creek
- --
Single 250' x 90' Bridge
9
Chock Creek
(3) 9'x 9' RCBC*
(3) 9'x 9'x85'RCBC*
Extension
RCBC* — Reinforced Concrete Box Culvert
3.0 SECTION 4(f)
The NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) recently acquired a large parcel near the
southern project limit at US 1 and Osborne Road (SR 1104) as part of the Pee Dee River Game
Land (see Figure 3.1). The site is subject to Section 4(f) of the DOT Act of 1966. Primary
purposes of the Pee Dee River Game Land include wildlife and timber management and public
recreational opportunities for hunting, fishing, and observing nature. The current design includes
widening improvements along existing US 1 and Osborne Road (SR 1104), impacting
approximately 2.4 acres of property. The design in this area transitions from the existing
alignment to new alignment, shifting to the east and away from the game land. The land to be
impacted serves as a buffer between the existing highway corridor and a large open land
Record of Decision, US 1 Improvements 6

complex (20 acres) managed for wildlife with emphasis on dove and other small game species.
Approximately 10 acres of the land is planted annually to provide supplemental food and hunting
opportunities for local sportsmen. The parcel is approximately 1,659 acres and was purchased
using funding from the Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF), Natural Heritage
Program, and North American Wetland Conservation Act (NAWCA). The project is being
planned and designed to minimize harm to the game land. No public comments were received
concerning the proposed game land acquisition. FHWA considers the impacts from the project
to this 4(f) protected site to be minimal and has concluded a "de minimis" impact determination
[23 CFR 774.17(5) (2)] is appropriate. NCWRC concurs that the project will not adversely
affect the features, attributes, or activities qualifying the property for protection under Section
4(f) (see correspondence in Appendix B, page B.20).
4.0 MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM
Measures to minimize harm through coordination, avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and
environmental commitments are discussed in detail in the FEIS Chapter 4 and in the Project
Commitments "Greensheet" included in Appendix A of this document.
4.1 Relocations
The number of residential, business, church and nonprofit displacements for the preferred
alternative was determined by reviewing current tax maps, aerial maps and by conducting site
visits. Based on this information, the preferred alternative impacts 97 residences and
eight business units, for a total of 105 relocations. No farms or non - profit organizations will be
relocated. Of these 105, there are 12 minority -owned residential units in various locations or
neighborhoods along the proposed project. No minority -owned business units are expected to be
affected. In addition, no churches or schools are impacted.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in accordance with the Federal
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law
91 -646) and the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS -133 -5 through 133 -18). This
program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in relocating to a replacement site
in which to live or do business. At least one relocation officer is assigned to each highway
project for this purpose.
4.2 Historic Architecture
The Phase II (Intensive Level) Architectural Survey and Evaluations of Eligibility
(September 1998) identified one National Register property (Covington Plantation House) and
three other resources considered to be eligible for the National Register (Williams Diggs House,
St. Paul United Methodist Church, and Flowers -Hamer House). All of the properties except the
St. Paul United Methodist Church are located outside the project's Area of Potential Effect (APE)
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has concurred with the determination by FHWA
Record of Decision, US 1 Improvements 7

that the project would have no effect on the St. Paul United Methodist Church. During a
2007 review of the project, NCDOT historians determined there were no additional properties
eligible for the National Register and further consultation with SHPO was not necessary
(FEIS Section 4.1.4.1, Historic Architectural Resources). The APE established in the Phase 11
report, and reviewed in December 2007, included the expanded study areas at the Wiregrass
Road (SR 1640) / County Home Road (SR 1624) intersection and the McDonalds Pond
Restoration site east of County Home Road (SR 1624). Based on this, NCDOT historians
determined in June 2010 no additional studies were necessary.
4.3 Archaeology
A December 2001 Archaeological Survey Report identified four prehistoric sites — 31RH376,
31 RH401, 31 RH403, and 31 RH408 — within or near the preferred alternative that were
determined to be eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. In 2007,
representatives from SHPO, the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology, and NCDOT
established that no components associated with sites 31RH376, 31RH401, and 31RH403 were
within the APE of the preferred alternative. NCDOT recommended a finding of "no impacts"
for these three sites and HPO concurred with this recommendation. Furthermore, it was found
that site 31RH408 was well outside the APE and no further action regarding this site was
necessary. In 2011, NCDOT conducted archaeological investigations within the expanded study
area east of County Home Road (SR 1624). Twenty -six sites were identified but none were
determined to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Properties. An archaeologically
significant cemetery, site 31RH360, is located on the Cameron Plantation property. Although it
is not eligible for the National Register, part of it could potentially be impacted by the project.
If disturbance of the cemetery is unavoidable, the affected burial sites will be moved under the
regulations stipulated by NCGS 65. See Appendix A for project commitments.
4.4 Noise Impacts
Under Title 23 CFR Part 772, 165 residences, one business, and one campground are predicted to
be impacted due to highway traffic noise generated by the proposed project. Receivers located
within the right of way limits are not included in the TNM analysis. Of the 167 impacted
receivers, 128 are predicted to have noise levels below the Noise Abatement Criteria and are
impacted due to a substantial increase in the noise levels. Those receivers are generally located
in quiet areas, with the measured existing ambient background noise levels below 50 dB(A).
The results of the noise study show that the proposed US 1 corridor improvement will increase
noise levels at noise sensitive properties in the immediate vicinity of the roadway. The predicted
changes in noise levels for this project range from negative 10 ( -10) dB(A) to 32 dB(A). For
reference purposes, an increase of three decibels is considered barely perceivable, and an
increase of ten decibels is considered to double the loudness.
Record of Decision, US 1 Improvements 8

Noise barriers were primarily investigated in seven noise sensitive areas (Areas 1 through 7) in
the vicinity of the US 1 project. All preliminarily feasible noise wall alignments and
configurations were examined in each noise sensitive area for the potential benefit of the future
year predicted traffic noise impacts. Through a sound barrier reasonableness assessment, it was
determined two barriers (Barriers 2 and 4) would meet NCDOT's Noise Abatement Policy
criteria for being reasonable and feasible and will provide for a total of 39 benefited receivers
from the proposed noise abatement. The two potential barriers are located from north of Hylan
Avenue (SR 1909) to the railroad crossing south of US 74 Business (see Figure 4). A detailed
study of potential mitigation measures for these two areas will be conducted during the final
project design. See Appendix A for project commitments.
Noise barriers were also considered in seven other locations where impacted receivers are more
widely dispersed. In five of the seven locations, it was determined noise barriers would not meet
NCDOT feasibility criteria of providing at least a five dB(A) traffic noise level reduction.
The other two locations are located along US 74 Business and the proposed widening portion of
existing US 1. Barrier walls in these two locations would not be feasible due to having to
maintain access to businesses and residences.
The acquisition of property in order to provide buffer zones to minimize noise impacts is not
considered to be a feasible noise mitigation measure. The cost to acquire impacted receivers for
buffer zones would exceed the abatement threshold per benefited receiver. The use of buffer
zones to minimize impacts to future sensitive areas is not recommended because this could be
accomplished through land use controls and noise contour limits.
The use of vegetation for noise mitigation is not considered reasonable for projects such as this
one due to the substantial amount of right of way necessary to make vegetative barriers effective.
FHWA research has shown that a vegetative barrier should be approximately 100 feet wide to
provide a three dB(A) reduction in noise levels. No public or non -profit institutions are impacted
by this project.
4.5 NATURAL RESOURCE IMPACTS
Avoidance and minimization measures associated with wetland and stream impacts were
discussed and agreed upon by the Section 404/NEPA Merger Team (Concurrence Point 2A /4A).
These measures included; bridging, equalizer pipes, reduced median widths, and alignment
shifts. Concurrence Point 2A /4A is discussed in Section 7.1.4 NEPA /Section 404 Merger
Process of the FEIS.
4.5.1 Wetlands /Surface Waters
Alternative 21 will impact 40.5 acres of wetlands, 3,717 linear feet of stream, and 2.6 acres of
open waters. Efforts were made during project development to preserve and protect wetlands in
Record of Decision, US 1 Improvements 9

accordance with Executive Order 11990. Avoidance and minimization efforts were incorporated
in the preliminary design. Where possible, these include shifting the alignment to avoid water
resources, crossing streams perpendicularly, or crossing the narrowest areas of wetland systems.
These efforts have resulted in the avoidance of:
• 13 of 24 streams in the corridor
• 36 of the 55 wetland sites
• seven of 10 ponds
The NCDOT will attempt to avoid and minimize impacts to streams and wetlands to the greatest
extent practicable during project design. No "Critical Watershed Area" will be impacted by the
proj ect.
The NCDOT will investigate potential on -site stream and wetland mitigation opportunities once
a final determination of impacts has been calculated. If on -site mitigation is not feasible,
mitigation will be provided by North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources ( NCDENR) Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP). In accordance with EEP's
July 2010 In -Lieu Fee Instrument signed by the USACE and the NCDENR on July 28, 2010, the
EEP will be requested to provide off -site mitigation to satisfy the federal Clean Water Act
compensatory mitigation requirements for this project.
The contractor will exercise every reasonable precaution throughout the construction of the
project to prevent water quality impacts to rivers, streams, and water impoundments. Pollutants,
such as chemicals, fuels, lubricants, bitumens, and other harmful waste, will not be discharged
into adjacent rivers, streams, impoundments or ditches. NCDOT's "Best Management Practices
for Protection of Surface Waters" will be implemented, as applicable. Temporary impacts from
construction activities may include erosion resulting in the discharge of sediments in adjacent
waters. The contractor will be required to adhere to NCDOT's "Best Management Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters" and implement the Sedimentation and Erosion Control plans to
prevent the discharge of sediments into adjacent waters, to the maximum extent possible.
4.5.2 Endangered Species Act Protected Species
The US Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS) lists five federally protected endangered species in
Richmond County (see Table 3). Concurrence on the biological conclusions was obtained from
the USFWS or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (see Appendix B, pages B.1 -B.3).
Record of Decision, US 1 Improvements 10

Table 3: Federallv Protected Species Listed for Richmond Countv
Scientific
Common......... Name
Biological
Reason
Concurrence '
Name
Conclusion
May Affect, not
None found but
USFWS
Rhus michauxii
Michaux's sumac
Likely to
occurrences within
November 2012
Adversely Affect
one mile
Picoides
Red - cockaded
No cavity trees or
USFWS,
borealis
woodpecker
No Effect
foraging habitat
November 2012
within 0.5 mile
Lysimachia
Rough - leaved
None found and no
USFWS,
asperulaefolia
loosestrife
No Effect
occurrences within
November 2012
one mile
Acipenser
Shortnose
No suitable habitat
NMFS,
brevirostrum
sturgeon
No Effect
or occurrences
December 2012
within one mile
Acipenser
No suitable habitat
NMFS
oxyrinchus
Atlantic sturgeon*
No Effect
I
or occurrences
I
December 2012
ox rinchus
within one mile
* The Atlantic sturgeon was not included in the FEIS.
5.0 MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
Coordination will be maintained with all environmental regulatory and resource agencies during
final design, permitting, right -of -way acquisition, and construction to ensure that avoidance,
minimization, and compensatory mitigation measures are implemented. The NCDOT and
FHWA will enforce all pertinent specifications and contract provisions in accordance with the
intent of the FEIS and the welfare of the public.
6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
Environmental commitments are shown in Appendix A, Project Commitments "Greensheet."
Additional commitments have been incorporated into this document in response to input from
federal/ state agencies and local officials.
7.0 COMMENTS ON THE FEIS
The FEIS for the project was approved in December of 2011 and circulated to environmental
regulatory and resource agencies for comments. Chapter 6 of the FEIS includes a full list of
agencies and organizations that received copies of the document. Comments were received from
the following state and federal regulatory and resource agencies:
Federal Agencies
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (email) — March 1, 2012
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) — April 9, 2012
Record of Decision, US 1 Improvements 11

State Agencies
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources — March 19, 2012
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission — March 22, 2012
North Carolina Department of Administration — March 26, 2012
7.1 Federal Agencies
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency offered the following comments:
Comment: Concerns with respect to heronry.
Response: A meeting was held on March 15, 2012 between the NCDOT, USFWS, and the
NCWRC to discuss the procedures /policy for the great blue heron under the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act. The USFWS proposed that the habitat be reassessed closer to the project
construction date. If the heronry is still in place within the project site prior to construction,
NCDOT is to cut down all potentially suitable nesting trees located in the corridor along South
Prong Falling Creek (Wetland 26), between US 74 Business and the CSX Railroad. Cutting of
the trees should occur during the non - nesting season (September 16 through February 28).
NCDOT will also address the reassessment measures within the two to three year window from
the construction date.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
In a letter dated April 9, 2012, (see Appendix B, page B.4), the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency offered the following comments:
Comment: EPA notes the comments in Section 4.1.3.3 concerning Farmlands. The information
provided in this section of the FEIS does not correspond to the impact table information of
345.2 acres of impact. The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) does not require `mitigation'
for prime farmland losses. EPA requests that efforts to minimize potential impacts to prime
farmlands as defined under Title 7, CFR Part 657 be addressed during final project design.
Response: Comment Noted.
Comment: EPA notes the transportation agencies' information on Mobile Source Air Toxics
(MSATs) in Section 4.1.3.2.3 of the FEIS. EPA continues to not concur with the qualitative
analysis and generalized assessment approach and requests that the identification of potential
near - roadway sensitive receptors (e.g., Hospitals, daycare facilities, nursing homes, and schools)
be included in Record of Decision (ROD).
Response: The FHWA has several research projects underway to more clearly define potential
risks from MSAT emissions associated with transportation projects. While this research is
ongoing, FHWA requires each NEPA document to address MSATs and their relationship to the
specific highway project through a tiered approach. Three near - roadway sensitive receptors —
Pleasant Grove Baptist Church, Hallelujah Deliverance Church, and Richmond County Ninth
Grade Academy — are identified on Figures 3.1 and 3.4.
Record of Decision, US 1 Improvements 12

Comment: The transportation agencies' project commitments ( "Green Sheet ") are included in
the FEIS. The project commitments concerning impacts to the flood hazard areas, the
McDonald's Pond Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) wetland mitigation site, an
archaeologically significant cemetery, potential noise abatement measures, and the WRC Pee
Dee River Game Land are noted. EPA recommends that these project commitments, where
relevant and appropriate, be finalized during project design and be included in the ROD.
Response: The "Green Sheet" commitments from the FEIS are included in the ROD "Green
Sheet" to ensure they are implemented through final design and construction (see Appendix A).
Comment: Stream and wetland avoidance and minimization measures and compensatory
mitigation are addressed in Section 4.1.5.2.3 of the FEIS. Avoidance and minimization efforts
are identified on page 4 -22, including the avoidance of 13 of 24 streams in the corridor, 36 of the
55 wetland sites, and 7 out of 10 ponds. Bridge lengths at major stream and wetland crossings
are also identified and include the reductions in potential impacts at these locations. EPA
requests that the transportation agencies include the specific recommendations identified on
pages 4 -22 and 4 -23, including the re- design of the US 74 Bypass interchange, in the project
commitments for the ROD. Additional efforts to avoid and minimize impacts, especially
wetland site 4W18 (5.3 acres), 4W21 (8.0 acres), 4W26 (7.6 acres), and 4W37 (5.0 acres), also
be considered during final project design (e.g., Use of steeper slopes and retaining walls where
feasible).
Response: Stream crossing structures and proposed mitigation measures are noted in the ROD
"Green Sheet" commitments in Appendix A.
Comment: EPA acknowledges the efforts to avoid and minimize the impacts to the EEP
McDonald's Pond wetland mitigation site and requests that improved coordination to avoid these
potential conflicts in the future be considered by the US Army Corps of Engineers, NCDENR,
FHWA, and NCDOT.
Response: Comment Noted.
Comment: EPA requests that compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional
aquatic resources through the EEP be `in -kind' and within the hydraulic units (i.e., HU 03050103
and 03040105) of the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin.
Response: Comment Noted.
7.2 State Agencies
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
In a letter dated March 22, 2012, (see Appendix B, page B.10), the N.C. Wildlife Resources
Commission offered the following comments:
Comment: "... At this time we concur with the FEIS for this project..."
Response: No response necessary.
Record of Decision, US 1 Improvements 13

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
On March 9, 2012, the N.C. Department of Cultural Resources responded to an
intergovernmental review letter and indicated it had no comments on the project
(see Appendix B, page B.18).
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources — Division of
Water Quality
In a letter dated March 19, 2012, (see Appendix B, page B.11), the N.C. Department of
Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality offered the following comments:
Comment: Section 4.1.5.2.3 (Stream and Wetland Avoidance, Minimization, and Compensatory
Mitigation), for Structure 4, it states that the median width was reduced to 46 feet. However, for
avoidance and minimization purposes, it is not stated what it was reduced from to meet
avoidance and minimization efforts.
Response: The median was reduced from 70 feet to 46 feet to reduce impacts to the Watery
Branch system.
Comment: Section 3.3.6 (Hazardous Materials) and Table 3 -4 discuss and list 12 underground
storage tanks and auto repair facilities located within the study area. Typically, these discussions
include a risk assessment (low, medium, high).
Response: Table 4 in Section 8.3, Hazardous Materials of this document includes a risk
assessment for each hazardous materials site.
Comment: Section 4.1.5.2.3 states that on -site wetland and stream mitigation opportunities will
be investigated once a final calculation of impacts has been determined. The NCDWQ prefers
on -site mitigation where feasible and practicable, and the NCDWQ is curious as to why the
NCDOT is waiting so long to investigate potential on -site mitigation opportunities. The most
accurate final impact calculations will most likely not be available until the permit drawings are
finalized. This seems very late to be investigating on -site mitigation opportunities. The
NCDWQ strongly encourages the NCDOT to begin on -site opportunities as soon as the LEDPA
is chosen. The NCDOT is respectfully reminded that the NCDWQ and other resource agencies
will need to approve any potential onsite mitigation sites and plans. Additionally, the NCDWQ
prefers to see mitigation plans in advance of application submittal. The NCDOT is encouraged to
begin investigating any opportunities as soon as possible as to not delay the project
unnecessarily.
Response: All practicable mitigation opportunities will be identified and considered as part of
the Section 404 permit development. A detailed mitigation plan will be submitted by the
NCDOT prior to a Section 404 permit application for this project.
Comment: Page 4 -35, referencing the SDEIS, states "The preferred alternative has the potential
to adversely affect local water quality through increased storm water runoff, however, due to the
lack of proposed stream crossings, and the limited number of streams along the corridor, it is
Record of Decision, US 1 Improvements 14

likely that water quality impacts will be minimal." The NCDWQ does not agree with this
statement. It seems that the impacts to surface waters from storm water runoff would be more a
factor of the method of treatment as well as the quantity treated rather than a lack of proposed
stream crossings. Also, this discussion is included in the Indirect and Cumulative Effects section
of the document; therefore, it seems this particular discussion should also include other
development induced by the project. This other development is not dependent upon the number
of stream crossings. This statement seems to be based solely on the project itself, not taking into
account other induced development. There are other factors such as concentration, loading, and
assimilation rate of a given stream which affect water quality more than the number of streams
being impacted by the project.
Response: NCDOT recognizes NCDWQ's concern regarding the water quality conclusions of
the 2001 SDEIS and agrees the method of storm water treatment and the quantity treated has
more bearing on impacts to surface waters than the number of stream crossings. The FEIS
Section 4.2.4.1, Previous Report Conclusions (pages 4 -34 and 4 -35) discloses the findings of
earlier environmental documents, including the 2001 SDEIS. The conclusions given in this
section do not necessarily reflect the findings of the FEIS. A 2005 Qualitative Indirect and
Cumulative Effects (ICE) report analyzed water quality impacts, and the analysis was updated
for the FEIS. Based on recent information from local officials, the development activity
described in the 2005 ICE has stopped and no considerable development (induced or otherwise)
is expected in the foreseeable future.
The contractor will exercise every reasonable precaution throughout the construction of the
project to prevent water quality impacts to rivers, streams, and water impoundments. Pollutants,
such as chemicals, fuels, lubricants, bitumens, and other harmful waste, will not be discharged
into adjacent rivers, streams, impoundments or ditches. NCDOT's "Best Management Practices
for Protection of Surface Waters" will be implemented, as applicable. Temporary impacts from
construction activities may include erosion resulting in the discharge of sediments in adjacent
waters. The contractor will be required to adhere to NCDOT's "Best Management Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters" and implement the Sedimentation and Erosion Control plans to
prevent the discharge of sediments into adjacent waters, to the maximum extent possible.
In addition, any development would require permitting through the USACE and NCDENR
which would involve compliance with applicable 401 Water Quality Standards and
implementation of appropriate Best Management Practices.
Comment: It is discussed on page 4 -37 that three utility providers, Richmond County (water),
the City of Rockingham (water and sewer) and the City of Hamlet (water and sewer) would be
willing to expand existing systems if development opportunities existed and extension(s) were
feasible. The following paragraph in the document states the "Lack of a market for
development, a depressed economy, and limited availability of public utilities will likely limit
the amount of development within the majority of the GISA." Aside from the current lack of
market for development, the current depressed economy should be considered a temporary
Record of Decision, US 1 Improvements 15

effect, and may be affecting the lack of market. Eventually, and most likely in the coming years
(i.e., the foreseeable future), the economy will improve and the desire for development may
increase as a result. The statement regarding the utilities appears to be in direct conflict with the
previous statement that the three utilities express a willingness to expand should development
opportunities arise. Given that the economy is expected to improve, the three utilities are willing
to expand, there are major intersections of planned freeways, and the area would welcome new
development, especially commercial and industrial, the NCDWQ believes that there may be a
potential in the future for development and hence water quality impacts. This is echoed in the
document as well, "When TIP Project R -2501 is combined with the US 74 bypass and the
proposed I- 73/I -74 corridor, the improved regional transportation network could generate new
interest in development within the GISA, particularly for industrial (distribution- related) uses."
Response: Local officials indicated their utilities were operating under capacity and could
handle additional development needs, if present. However, these same officials did not anticipate
any considerable development to occur in Rockingham or Richmond County in the foreseeable
future.
The project is being developed as a controlled or partially controlled access facility. This would
restrict development to specific areas along the project corridor. Any new development would
have to comply with federal, state, and local water quality regulations and implement appropriate
BMP's.
Comment: There seem to be many contradictory statements within the ICE section of the
document. The NCDWQ would like to review NCDOT's Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative
Effects document, dated October 3, 2005 (referenced on page 4 -30), and is hereby requesting a
copy. Although the new project design is incorporated into the DEIS discussion as noted in the
project design as well.
Response: NCDOT provided a copy of the October 3, 2005 Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative
Effects document to the NCDWQ on February 25, 2013.
Comment: Appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance of 401 Water Quality
Certification.
Response: The NCDOT will investigate potential on -site stream and wetland mitigation
opportunities once a final determination of impacts has been calculated (see Section 3.5.4.1,
Streams of the FEIS). If on -site mitigation is not feasible, mitigation will be provided by North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (EEP). In accordance with EEP's July 2010 In -Lieu Fee Instrument
signed by the USACE and the NCDENR on July 28, 2010, the EEP will be requested to provide
off -site mitigation to satisfy the federal Clean Water Act compensatory mitigation requirements
for this project.
Comment: Environmental impact statement alternatives should consider design criteria that
reduce the impacts to streams and wetlands from storm water runoff. These alternatives should
Record of Decision, US 1 Improvements 16

include road designs that allow for treatment of the storm water runoff through best management
practices as detailed in the most recent version of NCDWQ's storm water Best Management
Practices Manual, July 2007, such as grassed swales, buffer areas, preformed scour holes,
retention basins, etc.
Response: The contractor will exercise every reasonable precaution throughout the construction
of the project to prevent water quality impacts to rivers, streams, and water impoundments.
Pollutants, such as chemicals, fuels, lubricants, bitumens, and other harmful waste, will not be
discharged into adjacent rivers, streams, impoundments or ditches. NCDOT's "Best
Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters" will be implemented, as applicable.
Temporary impacts from construction activities may include erosion resulting in the discharge of
sediments in adjacent waters. The contractor will be required to adhere to NCDOT's "Best
Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters" and implement the Sedimentation and
Erosion Control plans to prevent the discharge of sediments into adjacent waters, to the
maximum extent possible.
Comment: After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the
401 Water Quality Certification, the NCDOT is respectfully reminded that they will need to
demonstrate the avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the
maximum extent practical. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's
Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506[h]), mitigation will be required for impacts greater than one acre to
wetlands or more than 150 feet to any single perennial or intermittent stream. In the event that
mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost
functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as
wetland mitigation.
Response: Avoidance and minimization measures associated with wetland and stream impacts
were discussed and agreed upon by the Section 404/NEPA Merger Team (Concurrence Point
2A /4A). These measures included; bridging, equalizer pipes, reduced median widths, and
alignment shifts. Concurrence Point 2a /4a is discussed in Section 7.1.4 NEPA /Section 404
Merger Process of the FEIS.
Comment: Future documentation, including the 401 Water Quality Certification Application,
should continue to include an itemized listing of the proposed wetland and stream impacts with
corresponding mapping.
Response: Comment Noted.
Comment: NCDOT is respectfully reminded that all impacts, including but not limited to,
bridging, fill, excavation and clearing, and rip rap to jurisdictional wetlands, streams and riparian
buffers need to be included in the final impact calculations. These impacts, in addition to any
construction impacts, temporary or otherwise, also need to be included as part of the 401 Water
Quality Certification Application.
Response: Comment Noted.
Record of Decision, US 1 Improvements 17

Comment: Where streams must be crossed, NCDWQ prefers bridges be used in lieu of culverts.
However, we realize that economic considerations often require the use of culverts. Please be
advised that culverts should be countersunk to allow unimpeded passage by fish and other
aquatic organisms. Moreover, in areas where high quality wetlands or streams are impacted, a
bridge may prove preferable. When applicable, NCDOT should not install the bridge bents in the
creek, to the maximum extent practicable.
Response: NCDOT will place the invert of the culvert below ground to ensure fish passage.
Bent placement would avoid open waters to the extent practicable.
Comment: Bridges should allow for human and wildlife passage beneath the structure. Fish
passage and navigation by canoeists and boaters shall not be blocked. Bridge supports (bents)
should not be placed in the stream when possible.
Response: NCDOT proposes a 10 -foot by 11 -foot box culvert for wildlife passage east of
E.V. Hogan Road (SR 1700), near Standridge Place. The proposed bridge over Falling Creek
will also be of sufficient length to allow wildlife passage. NCDOT will coordinate with
NC Wildlife Resources Commission and US Fish and Wildlife Service in developing the
crossing designs. Concurrence Point 2A /4A provides details of the agencies decisions. Bridge
structures would provide similar vertical clearance as presently exists. Placement of bridge bents
would avoid open water as practicable.
Comment: Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream. Storm water should
be directed across the bridge and pre- treated through site - appropriate means (grassed swales,
pre - formed scour holes, vegetated buffers, etc.) before entering the stream. Please refer to the
most current version of NCDWQ's Storm Water Best Management Practices.
Response: A Stormwater Management Plan will be developed that indicates the proposed Best
Management Practices as outlined in the NCDWQ's Storm Water Best Management Practices.
Comment: The 401 Water Quality Certification Application will need to specifically address the
proposed methods for storm water management. More specifically, storm water should not be
permitted to discharge directly into streams or surface waters.
Response: Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources would be
implemented and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of North Carolina
Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual and the most recent version of
NCS000250. In addition, a Stormwater Management Plan will be developed that indicates the
proposed Best Management Practices as outlined in the NCDWQ's Storm Water Best
Management Practices.
Comment: Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts to
wetlands and streams may require an Individual Permit (IP) application to the Corps of
Engineers and corresponding 401 Water Quality Certification. Please be advised that a
401 Water Quality Certification requires satisfactory protection of water quality to ensure that
water quality standards are met and no wetland or stream uses are lost. Final permit
Record of Decision, US 1 Improvements 18

authorization will require the submittal of a formal application by the NCDOT and written
concurrence from NCDWQ. Please be aware that any approval will be contingent on appropriate
avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream impacts to the maximum extent practical, the
development of an acceptable storm water management plan, and the inclusion of appropriate
mitigation plans where appropriate.
Response: Minimization of impacts to waters has been addressed in Concurrence Point 4A
during coordination meetings with the Merger Team. A compensatory mitigation plan will be
developed during the preparation of the Section 404 permit application to address unavoidable
impacts to wetlands and perennial streams. Additional information can be found in the FEIS in
Section 4.1.5.2.3, Steam and Wetland Avoidance, Minimization, and Compensatory Mitigation
and Section 7.1.4, NEPA /Section 404 Merger Process for more information.
Comment: If multiple pipes or barrels are required, they should be designed to mimic natural
stream cross section as closely as possible including pipes or barrels at flood plain elevation,
floodplain benches, and /or sills may be required where appropriate. Widening the stream
channel should be avoided. Stream channel widening at the inlet or outlet end of structures
typically decreases water velocity causing sediment deposition that requires increased
maintenance and disrupts aquatic life passage.
Response: Pipes and culverts will be designed based on natural stream cross - sections to the
extent practicable.
Comment: It should be noted that if foundation test borings are necessary that geotechnical
work is approved under General 401 Certification Number 3687/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for
Survey Activities.
Response: Comment Noted.
Comment: Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be
implemented and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of North Carolina
Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual and the most recent version of
NCS000250.
Response: Comment Noted.
In a letter dated April 29, 2013, (see Appendix B, page B.15), the N.C. Department of
Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality offered the following comments:
Comment: The horizon year of 2020 used to analyze indirect and cumulative effects is no longer
valid based on the following reasons:
• The project is currently scheduled for construction "post year" (beyond 2020).
• The project has not been reviewed through Merger 01 4B or 4C concurrence points.
• Construction is expected to take several years.
Record of Decision, US 1 Improvements 19

Response: The proposed US 1 widening under R -2501C is currently scheduled to be complete
before the 2020 horizon year. The proposed bypass from US 74 Business to existing US 1 under
R- 2501BC is scheduled to be complete in 2023. The southern half of the proposed bypass under
R- 2501BB & R- 2501BA is scheduled for completion after 2024. As part of the permit
application process, NCDOT will reevaluate and update the indirect and cumulative effects
(ICE) analysis and include updated horizon years that correspond with the project funding
schedules.
Comment: There is mention of new developments that have been permitted or under
construction in the ICE document. DWQ is also concerned about local officials' hopes that the
combination of R -2501, the US 74 Bypass, and the future I -73/74 corridor will spur industrial
and commercial development. Any new development or future development should be
accounted for when considering cumulative and indirect effects of R -2501.
Response: In 2005, during the ICE's preparation, construction was underway at the Pine Hills
Industrial Park and the Richmond County Industrial Park. Local officials considered land
between Airport Road (SR 1966) and US 74 Bypass to be prime industrial land. They believed
the development interest was likely in response to the improving highway corridors. In 2011, as
reported in the FEIS, local officials indicated substantial development had stopped and was not
expected to occur in the foreseeable future. Prior to permit application, NCDOT will investigate
future development activities during the ICE reevaluation.
Comment: Census data considered in the analysis is from 2000. Data from the 2010 census is
now available and should be used to update the analysis.
Response: The 2011 FEIS incorporated partial 2010 Census information that was available at
the time. There was virtually no growth in the area's population, but there were substantial losses
in employment. Use of 2010 Census Data results will not alter the indirect and cumulative
effects analysis conclusions for this project. NCDOT will include 2010 Census data in the ICE
reevaluation and update.
Comment: Current and future zoning maps should be included in an updated ICE.
Response: The City and County Planning and Land Use documents referenced in the ICE and
FEIS are still in effect, and no updates have occurred. The City of Rockingham updated its
Zoning Map in 2009, and FEIS considered these updates as part of the ICE evaluation. NCDOT
will include future zoning information the ICE reevaluation.
Comment: The updated ICE should note if utility service areas have expanded since 2005 and if
there are any additional plans to provide new service to areas in the Growth Impact Study Area
(GISA) in the foreseeable future.
Response: As indicated in the FEIS, very little expansion in utility service had occurred in the
GISA between 2005 and 2011. NCDOT will note additional utility expansion plans the ICE
reevaluation.
Record of Decision, US 1 Improvements 20

Comment: The traffic analysis report referenced in the ICE document is from 1999 and uses a
horizon year of 2020. Again, due to the age of this data, the traffic analysis report should be
updated and should use a horizon year beyond 2020.
Response: The traffic forecasts were updated in 2008 using a horizon year of 2035. These were
presented in the FEIS. NCDOT will incorporate the 2035 horizon year traffic forecast the ICE
reevaluation.
Comment: The ICE report notes the GISA includes portions of the following:
• The Lumber River Basin
• Two water supply watershed critical areas
• A high quality watershed
It should be demonstrated that all waters within the GISA will not be negatively impacted by R-
2501. Especially the ones listed above.
Response: The ICE reevaluation updates will provide sufficient data to demonstrate that R -2501
will not negatively impact the water resources.
Comment: DWQ is under the opinion that the assumptions and information used in the ICE
analysis needs to be updated to reflect more recent data. Because of this, the DWQ is unable to
make a determination that waters within the GISA and surrounding areas will not be degraded by
indirect and cumulative impacts resulting from R -2501.
Response: FHWA and NCDOT believe the FEIS and ICE sufficiently disclosed the anticipated
indirect and cumulative effects. However, the ICE reevaluation and analysis prior to project
permitting and 401 Water Quality Certification will include the requested updates.
7.3 Public Comments
Public Hearing Comments
A Corridor Protection Hearing and Public Hearing were held for R -2501 on October 30, 2012 in
Rockingham. The following comments on the FEIS were received during the hearing.
Comment: Ms. Lynne Stephens is an owner of the Loch Haven Golf Course property at
612 Loch Haven Road, Rockingham. She is opposed to the proposed bypass. The Purpose and
Need should show a significant reason why tax dollars are being spent while also causing
significant environmental damages and social costs. She does not believe that the predicted
future traffic or travel time savings demonstrate a significant need for the project. Much of the
peak downtown Rockingham traffic comes from local traffic (Table 1 -7). The peak traffic
projection and the Final Impact Statement shows that a rush hour 18.6 mile trip from Sandhill
Road to Marston Road is only expected to increase by one minute in 2035. The proposed bypass
shows a travel time improvement of as much as seven minutes for morning peak through traffic
but does not address other non -peak times.
Record of Decision, US 1 Improvements 21

Response: The purposes of the project include reducing travel time, reducing congestion by
diverting through traffic and truck traffic, and improving mobility on the US 1 Strategic
Highway Corridor. With no improvements, future year travel time along the corridor is expected
to increase by approximately one minute during the peak hour. Some two -lane portions of US 1
near the downtown area currently operate at or near their traffic carrying capacity. In the future,
traffic operations will continue to deteriorate on the two -lane sections of US 1 near the
downtown area due to 25 to 35 mph travel speeds, numerous access points, and traffic signals.
A more efficient travel route is needed to reduce US 1 through traffic in downtown and improve
mobility along the US 1 corridor. A proposed US 1 Bypass would divert through traffic and
truck traffic from US 1 downtown. With the US 1 improvements, the future trip from north of
Sandhill Road (SR 1971) to Marston Road (SR 1001) is estimated to reduce US 1 travel time by
more than 10 minutes and increase average speeds by 25 mph. The peak hour trip was used to
correspond with peak hour traffic capacity results. During non -peak periods, travel time delays
at the traffic signals are expected to reduce, but not substantially.
Ms. Stephens reiterated this public hearing comment and the following two comments in a
November 19, 2012 letter to FHWA (see Appendix B, page B.31).
Comment: Ms. Stephens commented that a bypass would reduce traffic through downtown
Rockingham, and decrease tax revenues since travelers would not stop for meals and lodging.
This would not benefit Rockingham businesses and residents.
Response: While it is true that businesses along existing US 1 will have fewer travelers to stop
by their businesses, similar businesses located along near US 1 Bypass interchanges are likely to
receive this business traffic. Residents would benefit from improved travel conditions along
existing US 1.
Comment: Ms. Stephens also commented on the purpose of improved mobility on the US 1
Strategic Highway Corridor. The road builders want to implement the corridor's vision despite a
lack of clearly, articulated need. A purpose and need must not be so narrow as to define
reasonable alternatives out of existence. The purpose for this EIS is written so that alternatives
are not given a chance. The courts say that this is unacceptable.
Response: As described above, traffic on some two -lane sections of US 1 near the downtown
area will continue to operate at their traffic carrying capacity in the future. This is due to
25 to 35 mph travel speeds, numerous access points, and traffic signals. The No- Build, the
Transportation System Management, and the Mass Transit Alternatives were considered but
were determined not to address the purpose and need of the project.
Comment: Freddy Brown is a landowner in the Wolf Pit Township and has lived on his
property because of his love for timber and wetlands. His property has old Long Leaf Pines,
Loblolly Pines, wetlands, and a stream. He has observed a colony of red - cockaded woodpeckers,
as well as shiners in the creek on his property. He noted the Environmental Impact Statement
Record of Decision, US 1 Improvements 22

does not include any fish studies and the surveys for rare species were conducted in two days of
field work. He noted more thorough surveys are needed. Mr. Brown feels the bypass plan
destroys property, people's homes and the ecology of the area.
Response: The FEIS reported conclusions of natural systems surveys that were conducted
according to NCDOT protocols during the spring, summer, and fall of 2007, fall 2008, and
spring 2010. In fall 2012, NCDOT biologists conducted additional field surveys within areas of
suitable habitat for all federally protected species listed for Richmond County. As described in
Table 3, the project will have no effect on the Red - cockaded woodpecker or any federally listed
fish species.
Post Public Hearing Comments
The following comments were made in letters to the FHWA after the hearing.
Comment: Ms. Kathy Peterson owns land within the project corridor. She is concerned the
proposed project could have a negative effect on bog oatgrass (see Appendix B, page B.27). She
noted the project corridor passes through an area designated by the North Carolina Department
of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) Natural Heritage Program (NHP) as a
"significant natural heritage area." The bog oatgrass is listed as a Federal Species of Concern by
the USFWS within this area. Ms. Peterson asked why this species was not discussed in the FEIS.
Response: According to the USFWS, a species of concern is one that is under consideration for
the threatened and endangered species list but there is not enough information to support it being
included. Species designated as Federal Species of Concern receive no legal protection under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Therefore, field surveys for the bog oatgrass were not
required.
Comment: Frances K. Osinski asked how environmental restrictions were considered enough to
prevent development (as stated in Section 4.2.10.1, Indirect Effects of the FEIS) but not enough
to prevent the selection of the proposed alignment through environmentally sensitive areas such
as wetlands, water supply watersheds, floodplains, and an EEP site (see Appendix B, page B.30).
Response: The FEIS statement that was referenced in the above comment indicates the project
area is unlikely to experience development and land use changes as an indirect result of the
proposed project due to environmental restrictions and other factors. It does not suggest the
bypass should not be constructed due to those same restrictions.
Comment: Ms. Donna Osinski expressed her concern for the McDonald's Pond EEP site and
how the proposed project is expected to impact it (see Appendix B, page B.29). Ms. Osinski
feels the decision to allow the alignment to pass through a portion of the site will send a message
that public and private lands donated for conservation will not always be protected by
government officials as intended by the EEP.
Response: The McDonald's Pond restoration site was constructed in 2005. The preferred
alternative was formally established and selected in 2001, prior to construction of the EEP site.
Record of Decision, US 1 Improvements 23

Close coordination between NCDOT and the environmental protection agencies (including the
EEP) regarding the restoration site occurred throughout the planning phase of the proposed
project. The coordination and mitigation measures taken to minimize impacts to the restoration
site are documented in the FEIS.
Comment: In a November 19, 2012 letter to the FHWA, Lynne Stephens contends there is a
discrepancy between the project purpose and information found in Section 4.2.10.2, Cumulative
Effects of the FEIS (see Appendix B, page B.31). She points out the statement, "...the large
amount of rural and conservational lands, the general lack of utilities (except in built -up areas),
low population growth, and a stagnant economy should limit the potential of any induced
growth..." indicates the Rockingham area is not expected to experience significant grow. One
would conclude then that the threat of additional congestion does not exist, which refutes an
aspect of the project purposes
Response: The FEIS statement referenced in the above comment indicates the project area is
unlikely to experience development and land use induced by the proposed project due to current
development, environmental, and economic conditions. It does not suggest traffic congestion
will not worsen in the future. Part of the purpose of this project is to reduce congestion in
downtown Rockingham by diverting through traffic and truck traffic from local streets. Some
two -lane portions of US 1 near the downtown area currently operate at or near their traffic
carrying capacity. In the future, traffic operations will continue to deteriorate on the two -lane
sections of US 1 near the downtown area due to low travel speeds, numerous access points, and
traffic signals.
Comment: In a November 20, 2012 letter to the FHWA (and forwarded to US President Obama
November 21, 2012), Edward Osinski, Jr., representing Eddie O's Enterprises LTD stated the
R -2501 FEIS and supporting environmental reports are inadequate and lack integrity
(see Appendix B, page B.33).2 In addition, Mr. Osinski wrote there are numerous environmental
problems with the project which require more investigation before the approval of the ROD. The
letter references the company's disagreement regarding wetlands on their property (Loch Haven
Golf Course) as a basis for the above comments.
Response: Ms. Lynne Stephens, part owner of the golf course and representative of Eddie O's
Enterprises LTD, filed a request for appeal (RFA) with the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE)
concerning jurisdictional determinations of wetlands on golf course property. The request was
received by the ACOE on November 1, 2011. The appeal purported that the ACOE incorrectly
applied relevant regulatory guidance and criteria for identifying and delineating wetlands.
Specifically, the wetlands identified on the property should be larger than indicated by the
jurisdictional determination documents and maps. After an appeal meeting with Eddie O's
' The other comrnents in the November 19, 2012 letter were made verbally by Ms. Stephens at the Public Hearing.
Reponses to those comments may be found under "Public Hearing Comments" in Section 7.3, Public Comments.
2 The White House forwarded the letter addressed to President Obaina to the FHWA and requested FHWA respond
to Mr. Osinski's letter and copy the White House Office of Presidential Correspondence on the response.
Record of Decision, US 1 Improvements 24

Enterprises LTD representatives and a site visit, the ACOE concluded the appeal had merit and
would be remanded to the ACOE Wilmington District for reevaluation and investigation as to
whether correcting the reporting errors would affect the amount of identified wetlands on the
property (see the February 21, 2012 memo from the ACOE in Appendix B, page B.36 for more
details). The ACOE Wilmington District revisited and reevaluated the property wetlands and in
a July 6, 2012 memo to the ACOE Appeal Officer (and copied to Ms. Stephens and Eddie O's
Enterprises LTD), it concluded the reevaluation did not change the amount of wetlands
delineated under the original jurisdictional determinations (see Appendix B, page B.42).
Under the ACOE jurisdictional determination appeals process, the reevaluation finding and its
entry into the Administrative Record is the final decision on the jurisdictional determinations (See
Page B.51).
In response to Mr. Osinski's November 21, 2012 letter to President Obama, the FHWA sent a
letter dated March 8, 2013 to Eddie O's Enterprises LTD (see Appendix B, page B.44). The
letter acknowledged their appeal to the ACOE concerning delineated wetlands on their property
and reiterated the conclusions of the reevaluation. The letter also stated a detailed response to
their comments would be included in the ROD.
In addition to their assertion that the FEIS and supporting environmental reports lack integrity
based on their jurisdictional determinations appeal, Osinski family members (including
Mr. Osinski) and Ms. Stephens have made numerous other comments opposing the findings of
the FEIS. Their comments are well documented and lengthy based on numerous letters to State
and Federal transportation agencies, various political entities, and their Public Hearing
comments. Their comments, concerns, and requests for information concerning this project have
been considered and responded to as appropriate during the project development process.
FHWA and NCDOT believe the FEIS and supporting technical documents are complete and
have sufficiently disclosed the anticipated environmental impacts.
8.0 REVISIONS TO THE FEIS
The following are revisions to the FEIS for the US 1 Improvements based on comments
received.
8.1 Typical Sections
The FEIS recommended three different typical sections: a four -lane, median divided freeway on
new location with full control of access; widening the existing two -lane portion of US 1 to a
four -lane, median divided roadway with partial control of access; and widening existing US 1 to
a five -lane roadway with no control of access. Since the approval of the FEIS, NCDOT
reconsidered the limits of the five -lane roadway typical section. The previous limits of the
five -lane section were from approximately one and a half miles north of Fox Road (SR 1606) to
Record of Decision, US 1 Improvements 25

Marston Road (SR 1001). A four -lane, median divided section for the portion of the project that
widens existing US 1 [from north of Fox Road (SR 1606) to Marston Road (SR 1001)] was
presented as the recommended typical section on the Public Hearing maps.
Prior to the Public Hearing, on September 18, 2012, NCDOT met with representatives from the
speedway, dragway, and emergency services agencies. The local representatives indicated these
tracks attract many visitors and are important economic generators. Traffic should be able to
move as freely as possible during events. There are over 90 events throughout the year, several
of which draw large attendance and last for multiple days. The Speedway is used for test races,
NASCAR sponsored events, smaller race venues, and concerts throughout the year. The
speedway and dragway representatives requested a center turn lane instead of a median in the
vicinity of the speedway and dragway. This is to keep all existing access points to the two
facilities open during events and help prevent US 1 traffic from experiencing major backups.
During a recent race event, northbound US 1 traffic was backed up several miles (as far south as
Wiregrass Road) because all access points were not open for event parking. A center turn lane
would allow current access to be maintained and provide a lane for emergency vehicle use.
During the public hearing, several other property owners requested a center turn lane instead of a
median south of the speedway and dragway. Based on these concerns, NCDOT has revised the
typical section to include a four -lane median divided roadway from north of Fox Road (SR 1606)
to Cognac Road (SR 1605). A five -lane section is proposed from Cognac Road (SR 1605) to
Marston Road (SR 1001). Coordination with Rockingham Speedway, Rockingham Dragway,
and local emergency services representatives will continue throughout final design and
construction to insure that the proposed roadway supports the traffic management needs in this
area.
8.2 Environmental Commitments
Since the approval of the FEIS, project commitments regarding the following subjects have been
added to ROD "Green Sheet" (see Appendix A).
• Continued coordination with Rockingham Speedway, Rockingham Dragway, and local
emergency service representatives regarding access to these facilities during race events.
• Mitigation measures at stream crossing structures.
• Suitable habitat evaluation for the great blue heron.
• Suitable habitat evaluation for the federally protected rough - leaved loosestrife and
Atlantic sturgeon species.
8.3 Hazardous Materials
The hazardous material sites have been assigned a risk assessment factor based on information
derived from field visits by the NCDOT's GeoEnvironmental Section conducted in November
Record of Decision, US 1 Improvements 26

2007 and May 2010, and a GeoEnvironmental Impact Evaluation completed in December 2007
(Table 4). See Figure 5 for hazardous waste site locations.
Table 4: Hazardous Waste Sites and Risk Assessment
Map ID
Site
Site Address
Risk
Assessment
1 *
Callahan Enterprises, Inc.
874 East US 74 Business
Low
Rockingham, NC
Vacant Lot East US 74
2*
Big K Oil Company
Business
Low
Rockingham, NC
3*
Abandoned Gas Station
East US 74 Business
Low
Rockingham, NC
Vacant Lot East US 74
4
Big K Oil Company
Business
Low
Rockingham, NC
5
NCDOT
East US 74 Business
Low
Rockingham, NC
6*
Former Store
Approximately 1826 US 1
Low
Rockingham, NC
7*
EHS Racing & Chuck's
1975 North US 1
Negligible
Trucks
Rockingham, NC
8*
Guranos Performance Autos
2015 North US 1
Low
Rockingham, NC
9*
Sandhills Pressure Washing
2050 North US 1
Low
Rockingham, NC
10 *
House of Prayer Church of
2068 North US 1
Low
Deliverance For All Peoples
Rockingham, NC
11
Speedway 66 Service
2210 North US 1
Low
Rockingham, NC
12*
Emily's Sandbox
2259 North US 1
Low
Rockingham, NC
* Indicates site is within the proposed right of way.
Record of Decision, US 1 Improvements 27

The environmental studies for NC State Transportation Improvement Program Project R-2501,
Federal Aid Project NF -1(1) include the previously referenced Draft EIS (June 1999), the
Supplemental Draft EIS (April 2001), the Final EIS (December 2011) and this ROD. These
documents constitute the statements required by the National Environmental Policy Act and Title
23 of the United States Code (USC).
The Final EIS is in conformance with applicable provisions of 23 CFR 771 and satisfactorily
covers the anticipated environmental impacts including human, physical, cultural, and natural
effects. Updates documented in this ROD did not result in new or different significant
environmental impacts. All correspondence received between the Final EIS and the date this
ROD was signed have been reviewed (see Appendix B for a copy of the comments on the Final
EIS), and based on that review; the Federal Highway Administration finds that there were no
new significant issues or impacts identified. Therefore, the Final EIS remains valid.
Based on the analysis and evaluation contained in this project's Final EIS and updates included
in this ROD, and after careful consideration of all impacts and input from the public involvement
process, it is my decision to adopt the Preferred Alternative, Detailed Study Alternative 21, as
the proposed action for this project.
( John F. Sullivan, 111, P.E.
\42iii,94on Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
ip MA
Record of Decision, US 1 Improvements 28

FIGURES

Blewett
Falls Lake
■®
8
South Carolina
Miles
0 5 10
North Carolina Counties
Richmond County
Laurinburg
Gibson
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
91. I
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS UNIT
T.I.P. R -2501
Record of Decision
US 1, Rockingham, N.C.
Richmond County
Project Location Map
Figure 1

,
VARIABLE 416'- 70'MEDIAN
6'
18' 12"
12' 12' 12' 12' X 127
12'*
18'
1
11"
U.
8
PS
P psi,
GRADE GRADE
X
01I
Il�'
POINT POINT
r
�
f �8
+� 8%21,
2%8%
.
r
,�
�� ? n U
_.
—Lane Four
a
on New Location
15with Guardrail
,
1 1'
1" 11,x" 11,5' 1' 1'
1
184 `
yy
�S
ryry
•%.TY oN,rii 1
M
o
Nr
4"
i
015
_
PS
I s
VC,
vc
`4
.3 a
g,^
t
�
i
r
F,f }v
r-
POINT
,�-
n
,,�
r'
„
.
Four-Lane Widening
m
0
ot'u1W,ItH'
* 13'wsth Guardrail
11,1m N 1,

Figure 3.1 - Preferred Alternative
Stanly Cozmty 121IIo ore Coa ... n
Montgomery Coarnty /
\ Sout y �
Pine y
Hoke
JJ/ \ Anson Richmond Coarnty
Monro Coarnty ' County
Union Ro m
Wa a oro aef
Coarnty f a t Scotl nd `
County
t
South Carolina _/_ �i n'•
Greensboro
• I I S '-
sheville
ay etteville
0 North Carolina Counties
Richmond County
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DE\ FLOP \1E \T.i -D
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS UNIT
T.I.P. R -2501
Record of Decision
US 1, Rockingham, N.C.
Richmond County
Figure 3.1
Proposed Roadway
Project Right of Way
Bridges /Culverts
Pond
Wetland
Stream
Preferred Alternative Study Area
Pee Dee River Game Land
Feature Label
OStructural
Number
Stanly Cozmty 121IIo ore Coa ... n
Montgomery Coarnty /
\ Sout y �
Pine y
Hoke
JJ/ \ Anson Richmond Coarnty
Monro Coarnty ' County
Union Ro m
Wa a oro aef
Coarnty f a t Scotl nd `
County
t
South Carolina _/_ �i n'•
Greensboro
• I I S '-
sheville
ay etteville
0 North Carolina Counties
Richmond County
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DE\ FLOP \1E \T.i -D
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS UNIT
T.I.P. R -2501
Record of Decision
US 1, Rockingham, N.C.
Richmond County
Figure 3.1

Figure 3.2 - Preferred Alternative
Proposed Roadway
Project Right of Way
Bridges /Culverts
Pond
Stream
Wetland
Preferred Alternative Study Area
Feature Label
OStructural Number
stanly Cozmty 121IIo ore Coa ... n
Montgomery Con"t1v /
\ Sout y �
Pine y
Hoke
JJ/ \ Anson Richmond Coarnty
Monro Coarnty ' County
Union Ro m
Wa a oro aef
Coarnty f � � a t Scotland
Coarnty
t
South Carolina _/_ ri n'•
Greensboro
e
etteville
0 North Carolina Counties
Richmond County
w NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS UNIT
T.I.P. R -2501
Record of Decision
US 1, Rockingham, N.C.
Richmond County
Figure 3.2

Figure 3.3 - Preferred Alternative
Stream
„,µ,M,M,M,M,M,M,M,M,M,.. Wetland
Preferred Alternative Study Area
0 Feature Label
Stanly Coarnty Moore Coa...n
MontgornerF CoarntV ✓f `��
• Pine y
Hoke
J A Anson Richmond CoarntV
lonro (lung, County
Union Ro m
Wa e� oro -.
Coarnty f a t Scotland
CoaMY
t
South Carolina ri ur
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS UNIT
T.I.P. R -2501
Record of Decision
US 1, Rockingham, N.C.
Richmond County
Figure 3.3

Figure 3.4 - Preferred Alternative
Proposed Roadway
Project Right of Way
Bridges /Culverts
McDonald's Pond
Pond
Stream
.M,M,M,M,M,M,M,M,... Wetland
Preferred Alternative Study Area
0 Feature Label
OStructural Number
Staidv Coarnty Moore Conw),
` .� MontgornerV CoarntV
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
'
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS UNIT
Sout
T.I.P. R -2501
Pine
Hoke
Anson Richmond
Coarnt_V
Tonro�
Coll"tV County
Figure 3.4
r Union
Coarnty�
— Roc
Wa a oro
f a
�
m
aef �•
t Scotland
Coarnty
I tom"
South Carolina
t.,
'i n'
Greensboro
ay etteville
0 North Carolina Counties
0 Richmond County
};
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
'
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS UNIT
T.I.P. R -2501
Record of Decision
US 1, Rockingham, N.C.
Richmond County
Figure 3.4

Figure 3.5 - Preferred Alternative
Stanly County 121IIo ore Coa ... n
Montgomery Coarnty /
\ Sout y �
Pine y
Hoke
JJJ \ Anson Richmond Coarnty
Monro Coarnt , ' County
Union Ro m
Wa a oro aef
Coarnty f a t Scotl nd `
County
t
South Carolina _/_ �i n'•
Greensboro
• I I 2 1-
sheville
ay etteville
0 North Carolina Counties
Richmond County
NORTH GAROLISA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIOS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS LTIT
T.I.P. R -2501
Record of Decision
US 1, Rockingham, N.C.
Richmond County
Figure 3.5
Proposed Roadway
Project Right of Way
Bridges /Culverts
McDonald's Pond
Pond
Stream
„,µ,M,M,M,M,M,M,M,M,M,..
Wetland
Preferred Alternative Study Area
0
Feature Label
OStructural
Number
Stanly County 121IIo ore Coa ... n
Montgomery Coarnty /
\ Sout y �
Pine y
Hoke
JJJ \ Anson Richmond Coarnty
Monro Coarnt , ' County
Union Ro m
Wa a oro aef
Coarnty f a t Scotl nd `
County
t
South Carolina _/_ �i n'•
Greensboro
• I I 2 1-
sheville
ay etteville
0 North Carolina Counties
Richmond County
NORTH GAROLISA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIOS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS LTIT
T.I.P. R -2501
Record of Decision
US 1, Rockingham, N.C.
Richmond County
Figure 3.5

Figure 3.6 - Preferred Alternative
Stanly Cozmty 121IIo ore Coarnt,
Montgomery Coarnty /
\ Sout y �
Pine y
Hoke
JJJ \ Anson Richmond Coarnty
Monro Coarnty ' County
Union Ro m
Wa a oro aef
Coarnty f a t Scotl nd `
County
t
South Carolina _/_ r i n'
Greensboro
e
etteville
0 North Carolina Counties
Richmond County
Proposed Roadway
Project Right of Way
Bridges /Culverts
Pond
Stream
,,µ,M,M,M,M,M,M,M,M,...
Wetland
Preferred Alternative Study Area
0
Feature Label
OStructural
Number
Stanly Cozmty 121IIo ore Coarnt,
Montgomery Coarnty /
\ Sout y �
Pine y
Hoke
JJJ \ Anson Richmond Coarnty
Monro Coarnty ' County
Union Ro m
Wa a oro aef
Coarnty f a t Scotl nd `
County
t
South Carolina _/_ r i n'
Greensboro
e
etteville
0 North Carolina Counties
Richmond County
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS UNIT
T.I.P. R -2501
Record of Decision
US 1, Rockingham, N.C.
Richmond County
Figure 3.6

Figure 3.7 - Preferred Alternative
Proposed Roadway
Project Right of Way
Bridges /Culverts
Pond
Stream
.M,M,M,M,M,M,M,M,... Wetland
Preferred Alternative Study Area
OFeature Label
Stanly Cozmty 121IIo ore Coa ... n
Montgomery Coarnty /
\ Sout y �
Pine y
Hoke
JJ/ \ Anson Richmond Coarnty
Monro Coarnty ' County
Union Wa Ro m
a oro aef
Scotl nd
Coarnty f a t `
coarnty
t
South Carolina ri n'
Greensboro
e
etteville
0 North Carolina Counties
Richmond County
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS UNIT
T.I.P. R -2501
Record of Decision
US 1, Rockingham, N.C.
Richmond County
Figure 3.7

Stanly Coarnty Moore Coa ... n
Montgomery Con"t1v /
\ Sout y �
Pine y
Hoke
J Anson Richmond
JJ A. CoarntV
Monro Coarnty ' County
Union oro Ro m
Wa a aef
' Colmly, f a t Scotland `
CoarntV
t
South Carolina ri ur
Greensboro
�Ashevi; lle
ay etteville
0 North Carolina Counties
Richmond County
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRi.NSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS UNIT
TIP No. R -2501
Record of Decision
US 1 Corridor Improvements
Richmond County
Figure 4
Figure 4
Potential Barrier Locations
a
Noise Sensitive Area
GIMMMMM
Potential Barrier Locations
Proposed Roadway
MM 111Receiver
Impacted Receiver
Benefited & Impacted Receiver
Benefited & Non - Impacted Receiver
Stanly Coarnty Moore Coa ... n
Montgomery Con"t1v /
\ Sout y �
Pine y
Hoke
J Anson Richmond
JJ A. CoarntV
Monro Coarnty ' County
Union oro Ro m
Wa a aef
' Colmly, f a t Scotland `
CoarntV
t
South Carolina ri ur
Greensboro
�Ashevi; lle
ay etteville
0 North Carolina Counties
Richmond County
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRi.NSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS UNIT
TIP No. R -2501
Record of Decision
US 1 Corridor Improvements
Richmond County
Figure 4

,Q�L
esboro
T o wad
BUS
OV
BYP!
North Carolina
ftmftSouth Carolina
3'....,I
BUS
�.o
,0
a
�r
o art = ova
0
0
a�
�a
P`
�
h-
Map Sources
-"
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Environmental Systems
Research Institute (ESRI)
Town of Rockingham
Richmond County
Florence & Hutcheson
0
2 4
I
I Miles
.
Figure 5 - Hazardous Waste Sites
Roads
Major Roads
�--� Railroads
.. ....... Municipal Boundary
County Boundary
Streams & Creeks
0 Water Bodies
Preferred Alternative Study Area
Hazardous Material Sites
sta"11, Conntt, Moore co ..
MontgornerF CoarntV /
\ Sout y �
Pine y
Hoke
JJ \ Anson Richmond CoarntV
lonro ConntV County
Ro m
n ,
Greensboro 7
Raleigh
to
ay etteville
0 North Carolina Counties Y ��
0 Richmond County Wil ngton
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTNIENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPNIENT AND
ns
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS UNIT
T.I.P. R -2501
Record of Decision
US 1, Rockingham, N.C.
Richmond County
Figure 5

APPENDIX A
Project Commitments

Project Commitments
US 1
From Sandhill Road (SR 1971) to Marston Road (SR 1001)
Richmond County
Federal -Aid Project No. NHF -1(1)
State Project No. 8.T580501
WBS No. 34437.1.1
T.I.P. No. R -2501
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Commitments Developed Through Proiect Development and Design
Division 8 / Roadway Design Unit / Hydraulics Unit
The NCDOT will attempt to avoid and minimize impacts to streams and wetlands to the greatest
extent practicable during project design. Avoidance and minimization efforts have been
incorporated in the preliminary design. Where possible, these include shifting the alignment to
avoid water resources, crossing streams perpendicularly, or crossing the narrowest areas of
wetland systems. Specific areas are described below (preliminary structures are in parenthesis).
• Structure 1 [three barrel 10' x 8' x 350' reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC1 —
Osborne Road (SR 1104) / Baggetts Creek - S3, W3, W9 — The proposed alignment
reduces wetland impacts by crossing stream S3 between two large wetlands W3 and W9.
• Structure 3 (three barrel 10' x 8' x 250' RCBQ — UT to Speeds Creek - W11, P1 — The
alignment was located to avoid stream S6 and to cross a narrower portion of WI 1.
• Structure 4 (two barrel 9' x 7' x 240' RCBC) — Watery Branch - Wetland W14 - The
median is to be reduced to 46 feet for minimization.
• US 74 Bypass Interchange — W18, W19, W21, P2, P3, and P4 — The greatest areas of
avoidance / minimization are in this interchange. As presented in the November 2004
interagency field meeting package, a larger full clover interchange design was planned,
resulting in impacts of 25.2 acres of wetlands and 3.5 acres of ponds. The proposed
bypass was shifted southward and the interchange footprint was compressed using
directional ramps. The impacts were reduced to 15.4 acres of wetlands and 0.5 acre of
ponds.
• Structure 7 (dual 450' x '38 bridges) — South Prong Falling Creek (US 74 Business) —
W26 — The alignment is located between residential neighborhoods and crosses the
smallest portion of wetland W24. Dual 450 -foot bridges with equalizer pipes are
proposed over part of the floodway for South Prong Falling Creek. On -site mitigation
opportunities will be pursued where NCDOT is controlling access to properties between
US 74 Business and the wetland areas. The proposed median width is 46 feet within the
wetland limits.
Green Sheet
June 2013
TIP No. R -2501 Record of Decision
Page 1 of 3

• Structure 8 (single 250' x 90' bridge) — Falling Creek — W27 — The alignment is located
along the south side of the project corridor to avoid wetlands W32 and W33 just to the
west. It crosses a narrower portion of W27. The alignment has been shifted to the south
of the original LEDPA alignment to cross a portion of the McDonalds Pond EEP site
where braided streams have narrowed. A 250 -foot bridge is proposed at the crossing, and
the median width has been reduced to 22 feet within the limits of the EEP conservation
easement.
• Structure 9 (three barrel 9' x 9' x 85' RCBC extension) — Chock Creek — 520, P9, W49,
W50 — The proposed widening is planned on the north side, away from P9 and W49.
W49 is the highest quality wetland along the US 1 widening portion of the project. This
location is in an area where the grade is being changed to flatten the vertical curvature.
Culvert extensions are planned on each side of the existing culvert. Shifting the
alignment further north will result in greater impacts to W50.
A five -lane roadway section will be constructed from Cognac Road (SR 1605) to the existing
five -lane section at Marston Road (SR 1001). Coordination with Rockingham Speedway,
Rockingham Dragway, and local emergency services representatives will continue throughout
final design and construction to insure that the proposed roadway supports the traffic
management needs in this area.
Slopes in wetland areas will be constructed at a ratio of 3:1 to meet constructability requirements
in the sandy soil conditions.
The proposed crossings at Baggetts Creek (downstream of US 1), UT to Speeds Creek,
Solomons Creek (at US 74 Bypass), South Prong Falling Creek, Falling Creek, and Chock Creek
are located within flood hazard zones designated as zone AE. The Hydraulics Unit will
coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program to determine the status of the project with
regard to applicability of NCDOT's Memorandum of Agreement of approval of a Conditional
Letter of Map Revision and subsequent final Letter of Map Revision.
This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to Federal Emergency Management
Agency regulated streams. Therefore, the Division shall submit sealed as -built construction
plans to the Hydraulics Unit upon completion of project construction, certifying that the drainage
structures and roadway embankment that are located within the 100 -year floodplain were built as
shown in the construction plans, both horizontally and vertically.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit /Division 8 /Roadway Design Unit
East of County Home Road (SR 1624), the project crosses Falling Creek (at Structure 8) and the
McDonalds Pond wetland mitigation site. This mitigation site is protected by a conservation
easement managed by the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program. During the right of way
acquisition phase for R- 250113C, NCDOT will secure an agreement from EEP and
Green Sheet Page 2 of 3
June 2013
TIP No. R -2501 Record of Decision

environmental regulatory agencies to convert the conservation easement to transportation use
and revise the available mitigation credits for other projects.
NCDOT proposes a 10 -foot by 11 -foot box culvert for wildlife passage east of E.V. Hogan Road
(SR 1700), near Standridge Place. The proposed bridge over Falling Creek will also be of
sufficient length to allow wildlife passage. NCDOT will coordinate with NC Wildlife Resources
Commission and US Fish and Wildlife Service in developing the crossing designs.
An archaeologically significant cemetery, site 31RH360, is located on the Cameron Plantation
property. Although it is not eligible for the National Register, part of it could potentially be
impacted by the project. If disturbance of the cemetery is unavoidable, the affected burial sites
will be moved under the regulations stipulated by NCGS 65.
A Highway Traffic Noise / Construction Noise Analysis for this project found noise abatement
measures are needed in some locations. A detailed study of potential mitigation measures for
two noise sensitive areas that meet preliminary feasibility and reasonableness criteria will be
conducted during the final project design.
Part of the Pee Dee River Game Land is located within the project study area at the southern
terminus and is subject to Section 4(f) of the DOT Act of 1966. The expected impacts are
approximately 2.4 acres of property that serves as a buffer between the existing highway corridor
and a large open land complex (20 acres) managed for wildlife. The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) has concluded a "de minimis" impact determination
[23 CFR 774.17(5) (2)] is appropriate. NCDOT will prepare the final design so that it will not
adversely affect the features, attributes, and activities of the game land.
NCDOT will conduct an additional species survey for the federally protected rough - leaved
loosestrife prior to construction of R -2501.
NCDOT will continue to coordinate with the National Marine Fisheries Service throughout final
design and construction to ensure the project will not cause any impacts to the federally
protected Atlantic sturgeon.
The great blue heron is protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Prior to construction
NCDOT will evaluate the area between US 74 Business and the CSX Railroad for suitable
habitat of the great blue heron. If suitable habitat is found, NCDOT will remove all potentially
suitable nesting trees located in this area. Tree removal will occur during the non - nesting season
(September 16 — February 28).
Prior to the permit application, NCDOT will reevaluate the indirect and cumulative effects (ICE)
analysis and include: updated horizon years that correspond with the project funding schedules;
2010 US Census information; future development activities; future zoning; future utiliy
expansion; and 2035 horizon year traffic forecast.
Green Sheet Page 3 of 3
June 2013
TIP No. R -2501 Record of Decision

��� �
� � ' �
� � � • � ! i � � li i

From: Riffey, Deanna [mailto:driffey(a�ncdot.gov]
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 11:47 AM
To: Brown, Steve L
Cc: Reep, Mark
Subject: R -2501 Sturgeon Concurrence
Hi Steve,
I wanted to let you know that I spoke with Kelly Shotts from the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) regarding the No Effect call for the Atlantic sturgeon for this project on
December 10, 2012. NMFS has deferred concurrence with the No Effect call to NCDOT. The
streams within the study area do not provide Atlantic sturgeon habitat due either to being
blocked by downstream impediments, or not being sufficiently large or deep enough to allow
Atlantic sturgeon passage. In addition, the Pee Dee River is located more than 3 river miles from
its closest tributary within the study area. The NC Natural Heritage Database, updated August
2012, indicated that there is no documented occurrence of Atlantic sturgeon within 1.0 mile of
the study area. Based on the criteria listed above NCDOT has issued a biological conclusion of
"No Effect" for the Atlantic sturgeon.
The shortnose sturgeon was previously issued a " No Effect" biological conclusion as well. The
information for the shortnose sturgeon can be found in the Natural Resources Technical Report
Update, January 2011.
This should conclude all the concurrence related information for T & E species for R -2501.
Deanna
IC

I • I , !111111M
♦ i I
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636 -3726
November 6, 2012
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1598
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
This letter is in response to your letter of November 1, 2012 which provided the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) with the biological conclusion of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation ( NCDOT) that the proposed US 1 Rockingham Bypass in Richmond County (TIP
No. R -2501) may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the federally endangered Michaux's
sumac (Rhus michauxii). In addition, NCDOT has determined that the project will have no
effect on the federally endangered red - cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), rough - leaved
loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia), Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata), and
shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). These comments are provided in accordance with
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531- 1543).
According to the information provided, surveys for Michaux's sumac were conducted within the
project area on September 11 and 19, 2012. No specimens of Michaux's sumac were observed.
However, the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program indicates the presence of the species less
than one mile from the project area near the northern terminus of the project within the Sandhills
Game Land. Based on the survey results and other available information, the Service concurs
with your conclusion that the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Michaux's
sumac.
According to information provided, surveys were conducted for red - cockaded woodpeckers in
1998, 2004, 2007, 2008 and 2012. Although some potential nesting and foraging habitat occurs
near the project area, no cavity trees were observed. Based on the survey data and other
available information, the Service concurs with your conclusion that the project will have no
effect on the red - cockaded woodpecker.
The last survey conducted for rough - leaved loosestrife occurred in 2007. No specimens of this
species were observed, and there are no records within one mile of the project area. Based on
current information, the Service concurs with your conclusion that the project will have no effect
on rough - leaved loosestrife. However, NCDOT had committed to resurvey for this species in
2013.
ROSIN

As stated in your letter, the Carolina heelsplitter has been removed from the protected species list
for Richmond County. Therefore, we concur with your conclusion that the project will have no
effect on this species.
The shortnose sturgeon is under the purview of the National Marine Fisheries Service.
Therefore, we have no comment on this species. However, please note that the federally
endangered Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) has recently been added to the
list for Richmond County. This species is also under the purview of the National Marine
Fisheries Service.
We believe that the requirements of Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied. We remind
you that obligations under Section 7 consultation must be reconsidered i£ (1) new information
reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a
manner not previously considered in this review; (2) this action is subsequently modified in a
manner that was not considered in this review; or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat
determined that may be affected by this identified action.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions
regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at (919) 856 -4520 (Ext. 32).
Sincerely,
fi -
�' Pete Benjamin
Field Supervisor
Electronic copy: Ronnie Smith, USACE, Wilmington, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Atlanta, GA
Felix Davila, FHWA, Raleigh, NC
IC

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
o 0 ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
Date: April 9, 2012
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
SUBJECT: Federal Final Environmental Impact Statement, US I Improvements Project,
Richmond County, North Carolina; CEQ No.: 20120054; TIP Project No.: R-2501
Dear Dr.Thorpe:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 Office has received
and reviewed the subject document and is commenting in accordance with Section 309 of
the Clean Air Act (CAA) and Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA). The Federal Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) include US I
improvements of 14 miles of a multi-lane, median-divided facility on new location and
5.3 miles of widening along existing US I between Sandhill Road (SR 1971) to north of
Fox Road (SR 1606). The total proposed project length is approximately 19.3 miles.
EPA staff has been participating in the NEPA/Section 404 Merger process for the
proposed project. EPA provided comments on the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) on September 22, 1999. A Supplemental DEIS (SDEIS) was issued in
2001 and EPA provided written comments on September 4, 2001 (Included in Appendix
A.1). NCDOT and FHWA have provided a response to EPA's DEIS comments on pages
7-5 to 7-7 of the FEIS. Specific technical review comments on the FEIS are attached to
this letter (See Attachment A).
EPA rated the DEIS alternatives as 'Environmental Concerns' (EC-2), with
environmental concerns for potential impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and streams and
impacts to the human environment. The rating of '2' indicates that DEIS information and
environmental analysis was not sufficient and that additional information and analysis
was required. EPA maintained its rating of EC-2 on the SDEIS recognizing that
additional information had been provided by the transportation agencies.
Internet Address (URL) * http://www.epa.gov
Recycled /Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30 */* Postconsurner) BA

EPA along with other agencies elevated Merger Concurrence Point 2A14A,
Bridging Decision and Alignment Review and Avoidance and Minimization Measures,
on September 3, 2009. Based upon additional coordination and project environmental
conflict resolution, EPA concurred on CP 2A14A on April 2, 2011. Additional
documentation for these Merger team efforts is included in Appendix AA of the FEIS.
In summary, EPA requests that the transportation agencies continue to look for
opportunities to avoid and minimize impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources during
final project design. EPA also requests that the remaining technical comments included
in the attachment be addressed in the Record of Decision (ROD).
Mr. Christopher Militscher of my staff will continue to work with you as part of
the NEPAJSection 404 Merger Team process during the hydraulic review and final
project design. Should you have any questions concerning these comments, please feel
free to contact him at Militscher.chrisgepa.gov or [phone] or [phone].
Sincerely,
Heinz J. Mueller
Chief, NEPA Program Office
w/Attachment
Cc: J. Sullivan, FHWA-NC
S. McClendon, USACE
R. Smith, USACE
B. Wrenn, NCDWQ
G. Jordan, USFWS
T. Wilson, NCWRC
RUN

Attachment A
Technical Review Comments on the FEIS
US 1 Improvements
Richmond County
TIP No.: R-2501
Project Impacts
The preferred alternative/Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable
Alternative (LEDPA) include the following impacts:
Residential relocations: 97
Business relocations: 8
Stream impacts: 3,717 linear feet
Wetland impacts: 40.5 acres
Floodplain impacts: 9.8 acres
Noise Receptor impacts: 167
Terrestrial forests: 483.5 acres
Prime/Statewide Important Farmlands: 345.2 acres
Endangered species: 1 (MA-NLAA)
Section 4(0 resource: I (WRC Pee Dee River Game Land — 2.4 acres)
EPA notes the comments in Section 4.1.3.3 concerning Farmlands. The
information provided in this section of the FEIS does not correspond to the impact table
information of 345.2 acres of impact. The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) does
not require 'mitigation' but 'compensation' for prime farmland losses. EPA requests that
efforts to minimize potential impacts to prime farmlands as defined under Title 7, CFR
Part 657 be addressed during final project design.
EPA notes the transportation agencies' information on Mobile Source Air Toxics
(MSATs) in Section 4.1.3.2.3 of the FEIS. EPA continues to not concur with the
qualitative analysis and generalized assessment approach and requests that the
identification of potential near-roadway sensitive receptors (e.g., Hospitals, daycare
facilities, nursing homes, and schools) be included in Record of Decision (ROD).
Project Commitments
The transportation agencies' project commitments ("Green Sheet") are included
in the FEIS. The project commitments concerning impacts to the flood hazard areas, the
McDonald's Pond Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) wetland mitigation site, an
archeologically significant cemetery, potential noise abatement measures, and the WRC
Pee Dee River Game Land are noted. EPA recommends that these project commitments,
where relevant and appropriate, be finalized during final project design and be included
in the ROD.
NOW

Avoidance and Minimization Measures and Compensatory Mitigation
Stream and wetland avoidance and minimization measures and compensatory
mitigation are addressed in Section 4.1.5.2.3 of the FEIS. Avoidance and minimization
efforts are identified on page 4-22, including the avoidance of 13 of 24 streams in the
corridor, 36 of the 55 wetland sites, and 7 out of 10 ponds. Bridge lengths at major
stream and wetland crossings are also identified and include the reductions in potential
impacts at these locations. EPA requests that the transportation agencies include the
specific peel ic recommendations identified on pages 4-22 and 4-23, including the re-design of
the US 74 Bypass interchange, in the project commitments for the ROD. Additional
efforts to avoid and minimize impacts, especially wetland site #W 18 (5.3 acres), #W21
(8.0 acres), #W26 (7.6 acres), and #W37 (5.0 acres), also be considered during final
project design (e.g., Use of steeper slopes and retaining walls where feasible).
EPA acknowledges the efforts to avoid and minimize the impacts to the EEP
McDonald's Pond wetland mitigation site and requests that improved coordination to
avoid these potential conflicts in the future be considered by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, FHWA
and NCDOT.
EPA requests that compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts to
jurisdictional urisdictional aquatic resources through the EEP be 'in-kind' and within the hydraulic
units (i.e., HU 03050103 and 03040105) of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin.
MCA

d s $9AIZ
r
North Carolina
Department of Administration
Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor
April 4, 2012
Mr. Steve Brown
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1548
;Moses Carey, Jr., Secretary
Re: SCH File # 12-E- 4220 -0217; FEIS for Proposed Improvements to US 1 from Sandhill Road
- SR 1971 to North of Fox Road - SR 1606 in Richmond County; TIP #R -2501
Dear Mr. Brown:
The above referenced. environmental impact information has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse
under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. According to G.S. 113A -I0, when a
state agency is required to prepare an environmental document under the provisions of federal law, the
environmental document meets the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act. Attached to this
letter for your consideration are the comments shade by agencies in the course of this review.
If any further environmental review documents are prepared for this pr(&ct, they should be forwarded to
this office for intergovernmental review.
Should you. have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
William E. H. Creech
Attachments
cc: Region H
Mailing Address: Telephone: [phone]
1301 Maul Service Center Fax [phone]
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1301 St fte Courier #5I -0I -04
e -mad sfole. ric_gov
An Equal ,4OON (a97p1Qj1er
Location Address:
116 West .tones street
Raleigh Nord) Carolina
Holm

Norrh Carolim Dcpa rtment of Environ-ment and Naturall IRtsources
Be-verly 1�-vcs Pcrduc
Governor
vivoRkWum
TO: Zeke Creech
FROM: Melba McGeehl�
E-nvironmenta.i I�c-,Tiew Coordinato-�,
Co u, n t. v
120217 FEIS US 1 lmprovemen-�s in -Ri.ch�-,Lonr:�
DATE: !got! 3. 2012
The DaparLment o
propmed Wformation
a.nd.
Merger Process,
D,�,e Freern.,11;,
Sec rcrarv-
E n v i roment a T I c ` L I rces Jn as re"', -Le wed ti-,e
The applicant is to c<msider t-he. av--achW
�onl.--irme to work vnrith ou.r ,3q^__..._ e_. £1.711 in
'Sank you for th-- ccport�mity tc
Atvachment:F,
1601 MaH Sewme CeMer, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: [phone]', Intemet: htkpIipGrtaLncdenr.org
An EmA OpyawU 1 AT miava Ambn Emooyr - 3010 ReqcW
One
Nor 111 "al,01111a
turalfil
L-01

VV 1 p
0 u C f2l S
Gorcion Myc-s, —Exec�uti,,,-C: Dirt-c-10-
mEm0p-k1NDU-vj
TO: Melba 'Ma (-JGe
Office ol'Lc, 'sh�tive and LTitcruovernmontZi Affiairs, DENTi'-,-
91
FROM-, Trav-is )Vilsom, .1--!1;1,c,,hwuv Proiec-1. 11---nordinator
'Habita' Consor-vation; Progi'ai-n -------
L�
DATE: 'vi arch 22, 201'-�
SUBjE,C-�': Ncith Carolina Dc-paArneut of Tr=�Tjcmaiion (NCI) CM Final Eilvironmfntal.
imps ct Smternen�t ' FEIN 'l fo-r the proposat impruvel-nents. tc US in Ricl-mlorld
County, Noith Carolina, TIP No- R-2501 S:CH Preject - No, '12-0-211 7
Staff bioboaist� Wifil the 'N' C. wildlifc Rcsourccs C,Ommis�31on the subject
T
�.S and are falinfliar with habits values, in th�- proJeci ana. The llulposc of this revkw was 10
ass�,3� pyqj,�ct impacts to fish and vvildlfi`-- r-csourcCS'. OUr cmrimenTs art, provld d in accordanct
42 ,
v,;Ith cermin pro-651c31I s of the 'Natioiial Envi-onmcmai
Fish and W-Odlife Coordinntion Act (.4'E Stai. 401, as annended; 16 -13r.(., 661-6674),
I
19CDOT is proposing improvenii-mv, IMIJS 1. from. Sandhifl, Road (ER 11.9711) to, no-thof Fox
Road (SR. 1606) in, Plchn� ,Dj,-�d i``oj, nty, -\i�7ef�C is �, pjr=jcjDajin�-,- aF.tncv in the ccordination and
plamning of this projec! and cur commcnt5 wovided ki cori'llunctioii with bile NE,,rA/41'-b4N11-r--C-
process havc bcc-n documentcel.
We will Continue effbfts to minimize 1"ninam d1z rl<� +he Fma, des un and construction 0,
1
!his, prof -ect includyim;, the as.sesFment of to fp-- Pct Dee Rivelr G, me Land as well as
ORSIte M; 41-aat? 011 Q PPOT-C uln i 1, 1 es, At th is, ti mc vv -, con1c. Lr- v,,,, i th ti-fe FETS for this pyqj ect. 1 f vo�, can
bc of �m.y assis4ancc p1ca-se call mc a, (919)528--9886.
cc: Gary laman, -u-SMIVS
Rob Ridings, T)V�,'Q
Ronnie Smith, SACH
Chms US-
AlaHling Ad A em DJ vision of In
- 1-121 Center - Ra16-v-h,NC 2-11699-11721
i51iephurge- [phone] - Fox-. (919 70' 0028
......... —,—L'---

ZM�Lli
NCDENR
North C,mjina Dep3rtment of Ewtonment and Natural Resour;,es
ivisicn a1 watBr �D gamy
Beverly 'Eaves perdue 0 arses VvaktId. R Deo freema
Gn:c rrc° Directol- Secretary
March 19, 2011
i� i G ANID
To: McINr .MzGee, f,a virronmental Coordinator, Office ofLegisiatiN€ and Intergovernmental
Affairs
From: David Wainwright, Division, of N�Vater Qua:[ztt Centrai Office �>
Subject: Con€nw -rrts On the .Final Envirolirnen.ml Impact Statement related to proposed .
improvements to U.S. I fronn Sandhi]] Roast (S.R. 1971) to Marston Rc2d (S.ft. 1001),
Richmond County, Federal Aid Prcrjec.t 'No_ NI�F -1 {1 }.. State prctj ct N"o. 8,T5805€3l, TIP
R- 25(11,
State C f �ariirghou sc Project No. 12 -02 i 7
This office has reviewod tare refer-enced docun ent dated December 2011. The NC Division of Water
Quality (�NiC]DWQ) is r'espoasii le for the issuance- of the Section 401 Water Quali-ty Cer�ificatior� for
activities that impact Maters of the U.S_ hiciuding wetlands, it is our understanding that the project as
presented wili resuk in impacts te. jurisdictional wetlands, strcams, and other swfa.Ge waters, NICD Q
offers the follow.ialg; Comments based on revi°w of dio aforcmcntioncd document:
Project Specific Comments-.
1. This project is being planned as part of the 404/N EPA Viergser Process, As a participating teary
membor, NC.DWQ will. continue to work with the teals.
2. Section 4.1.5.2.3 ,Stream and Wetland voidar ce, :�.i.;rizrr�sz��tiort, and C;onipeasator
Mltigyatian je eor Structure 4. it stales that the mcdia:n width was redaaccd to 46 feet..Hcrwever, for
avoidan and ax€inirnization purposes, it is riot states what it was reduced froiaa to rneeg:
avoidance and rninirtiizatio efforts.
3. Section 3.3.6 'Hazardous ;viaterials? a d 'Ia.ble 3 -4 disea:ss and list 12 underground storage tank
and auto repair facilities located v,'ithin the stud' area. Typically, these disc- ussi.ons include a risk
asseSsrrrent (10 -, _ medium, high .).
4. S tion = x.1.5_'.3 states that can -sits wet and and streani rn.itigation opporbini%ies will be
investigated once a final calculation of irnpaCts lays beeaa deter•ntinerl. The NCIDWQ prefers on-
site nritigatiorr °iter °e feasible and practicable, and fire 1erCDWQ is curious as to why the
NCODT is wa dng so Ion- to investigate poiential on -site mitigation opportunities. The angst
accurate final impact calculations will most likely not be available until the permit drawings are
finalized. This seems iate to be investigating, oar -site mitigation opportunities. The.
NCDWQ strongly oneourages the NCB OI' to begin on -sits: opportunities as soon as the l EDPA
1 rarSnorofljoin. a d Permitting. U r,
1�50 Lilaii Senq Denze, _ r ie al.,. No h Caro'�nm 2699-16117 rOD
LLmaz<on.5) 122N.. rS�ii] SDLj ulrYSLRaiagh,No, ~.,OamairiazieN ort I�.aros`_� a
F':lUl�.[::.�'i95-FR -53Gi t 1 AK E919^807-644 L M 9
I€1IGi'?ut +P ".�l€hf.nuut3 t8f�3l iii{ {. � zt
nr Epua> Opsartuli;v ; AfRirmat[ue Aeon err, ; -,ysr

is chosen. Tile NCDOT is respectfully reirunded that the NC',!.)WQ a.nd o ill --res)
Lrce agencies
will need to approve an ' y poteentiLl onsile mitigation sites and plans. Additionally- the NICDWQ
prefers to see mitigation plans in advance of application submittal, The NCDOT is encouraged
to begin invesliL'atim-' am'. opportunities at soon as possible as to riot delay the project
fly.
Pau, 4-35- rcfero,ncjma itw SDEIS, states " The preferred alternative has, the potential to
adversely affect local water quality through increased stormwater runoff; however, duc
W t:1
to the lack of proposed strearn crossinas and the limited number of streanis alona the
corridor. it is likely that water duality- impacts - ,, =ill be minimal." The NCDWQ do�snol
agree- n ith this statement. It setfills that ii'npacts to surface waters frond. storni,,vVer runoff
would be more a fiactor of the method of treatment as well as the quantity tremed rather
than 2 "lack of proposed stream crossing-S." Also, this discussion is hiclu&d in the
indin ct and Cumulative Effects section ofthe docurnent; therefore'. it seems this
particular discussion should also incilude other devcloprnont induced by the project. This
other development is not dependent upoii the number. of stream crossings. This
statement seems to be based on the project itself, not taking into account other
induced developn-tem" T here are other ffictors such as concentration, load-Ing., and
a ' 'lation rate or'a jiven streain -,.N?h1ch affect, water qualit-v more than the number of
si-•cams bein.'g, iMpacted by thu pro�jec-L
It is discussed m7 paLro 4-37 that three utility providers, Richmond C'ounty (walor).. the
i - - (water and sewer; wouJd
City oFRockingham (water and sewer), and the City of
hewillinly to expand. eyistinlgy systems if development opponunities existed and
extension(s) were feasible. Th�, follovAng para gaph. In tht document states the "Lack of
a market for &velopnieni'.. a &pressed economy, and limited availabilHy of public
utilities -wilt likel-y 1-h-nit the amount of develops ment within ffi.c.n1qjor1"tv ofthe GISA."
,ks'dc from th e current 'lack o-n-iarkct 'for development. the current depressed economy,
should be considered a ter rporary effect. and may be affect-ling the lack of market.
Eventually, and most likely in the coming years (Le. the foyeseeable future), the
economy will improve and the desires for development may increase as a result. The
stwLeMent roo-ardinu the utilities appeirs to be in direct coi-flict with the previous
statement that the three utilities expmss a willingness to expwrid should dev� lopmcnt
opportunities arist. Given that the economy is expected to improve. the three utilities are
willing to expand, there are major intersections of planned freeways, and the area would
Welcome new deve'lopla-lent, especially corn merciat and industrial'. the NCDWQ believes
that there may be a. potentiai in the future for devc,61opment and henca waler quality
impacts, This is echoed in the documem as welt, -Wheys 'I'lP Project R-2501 is
cornbino,d with the US 74 Bypass and the proposed 1-73 : / 1 -74 corridor. the improved
re�,ional transportation networl, could generate new Interest in development withitr the
GISA, particul"Drly for industnal 'distribution.-Tetated) uses."
'Ifficre seem to be many contradictory stalernents Avithin the 10E section. of the document.
I'lic NCDWQ would like to review -NCDOT's QualhatM,- Indirect and Cumulative
Effects document- dated October 3. 2005 'Yeferenced on page 4-30), and is hereby
requesting a copy. Althouuh the new prol eci design is incorporated into the ISIS
I .
discussion as noted in the footnote or page 4-30, ideally the 10E docum-.Ilt itself should
'be updated to reflect the new project desilgn as welt.
B.12

General Comments-
6, Appr r,priatc Wring abon Mans «•iii be required prior to issuance of a 40 Water Quality
Certification.
Environmental impact statement alternatives should consider design criteria that reduce the
impsacts to streams and wetiands from Lorna eater runoff, Thaesc alternatives should include
z c ad dvsips that al tow for Creatnnent of tine storm \v-ater runoff through best rnanag -Iment
practices es as detailed ill the ;most recent version of NC Id 's :5' o tu�rzier° Best . 2ir�zu er� r.t
Practice, 4114a xval., July 2007, such as ,rass-d swales, buffer areas, preformed scour tote - -s,
rctent.ion basins, otc.
After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to atr issuance of the 401 Water Qualiv,
Certification, the NCDC'T' is respectfuliv rer-ninded that they will read to demonstrate the
avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlatads (and strcams) to the maximum extent
practical. In accordance with the Enviromnental liana e�,��e�,t Corr?raaission's Rules (15A
NCAC 22.0- 506[hl), mitigation will be required for impact,, off greater than 1 acre to wetlands or
More than 150 fee* to ar;} single perennial or intermittent sir'o-arn, hi the event that mitigation is
required, the rniii <gation plan should be designed to replace appropriate iost functions and value,,.
The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as - wetland in €tigation.
9, Future documentation., includim tine 401. Water QUMitV Cernfication application, should
iontinue to i cl do an fiery zed listing of the proposed wetfai3d and stream impacts with
corresponding mapping,
10. N: CDO'F is respectfull y reminded that all iinpacts, including but not. limited to, bridging, fill.
excavation and clearing, and ,-ip rap to jurisdictiona€ wetlands, streanis. and riparian baffers Treed
to be irsciuded in the final impact calculations. These impacts, in addition to a.nv construction
impacts, ternporary or otla_orwise_ also need to be. included as par L of the 401 Water Quality
Cea�ificatior� ,�ppiier�.tlnra.
11.. Where strew -is must be crossed, ? CDWQ protcrs brid <g.es be used in lien of culverts. However,
the rcalize that econor nic. oonsiderations often require: the rise of euivcrts, please be advised tbaT
c,uIvc•tLs should bta countersunk to allow unimpcacd passage by fish and other aquatic organisms.
Moreover. in areas When high Clu.c`l!ity t''v'edaz?ds 01. strecgM al,e impacted_ a bridge M.ay prOvfi
preferable. Whcn appiioable, NICIDOT slaoald not histall the bridge bents in the creek, to the
mi-.,Jmurr extent practicable.
12. Bridges should ailOvk i'or hurnan and wildlife. passage beneaih the structure. Fish passage and
navi-arion. bv canoeists and boaters shall not be blocked. Bridge sapports (beats) should not be
placed iu the strcam when possible.
13. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the streanL Storm water should be directed
across the bridge and pre- treated through site- appropriaie meaats (gra�sed swales, pre-for=d
SCGrrr lades; tegetated buCC :'s. tc..) berctr errterir43 the sGrearr�. Please refer =te, the most can -ent
version ofNCDWQ s Sior -mater Bar( .,Va),zqgei7ae:7i 1 aclit °es_
14. The 401 eater Quality Certiiicatlon application will reed to specific.al.l�� address the proposed
rncthods for stormrwater niern.agen-icnt. More specifically,, storrnwalcr should not be per .hied to
disc. arrL) directly iTat€, stroam -, oy surface -waters,
B.13

15. Based on the infornuiti.on presented in the document, the magnitude oCi ptacts to wetlands and
Str°anis may require all Individual _ Permit (IP) appiicat.ion to the Corps of Engineers and
corresponding 401 'i14'atcr Quality Certification. Please be advised that a 401 Water Quality
Cerd:f.cai.ion satisfactory protectioal of water € ual;tY to eatsttre that water quality
standards are Bract and no vvetlaaad or stream a ses are lost. Final permit aufhorizatioa, will requiro
the subrraittal of a formal application by the NC�D Tp and written coacurrence from NCDWQ.
Please he aware that any approval will be continq("rit on appropriate avoidance and minimizaflon
of wetland and streann, Impacts to the maximum extent pracii.cal, tla.c development of an
acceptable stormwater manag°;'t1ew pla.tt, Wid the inclusiQta of appropriate araitigation plans
whore appropriate.
16. If multiple pipes or barrels are required., they should be desig-ned to mimic stair €real siream cress
section as closely as possible :including pipes or barrel,, at flood plait elevation° floodpiain
beac ds. and /or sills may be required there appropriate, Widening the stream channel should
lie a.voidcd.. Stream channol widening at the inlet or outlet end of structures typically decreases
water velocity causing sediment deposition that requires increased mainienarace and disrupts
aquatic life- passage.
17. It should be noted,. that if foundation rest borings are necessary that geotcchnical work is
approved. Lander General 401 Certification Number 3687, Natjonvdde Permit No. b for Survey
activities.
18, Sed €mem and erosion control measures s afficient to protect water resources must be
impiornented and maintaia)cd in accordance with the most recent version of North Carolina
Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual and the most recent version of
I CS00025E_,
NIC'DWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide co�mn -rents on your project. Should Vol] 1 .1ave ally questions
or regatirC all;` additional information, plcaso co,.ttact. David Wai,nwri.p,ht at (91.9) 9€17 -6405.
cc, Ronnie Smith, US Itrrny Carps of ngineeFs, Wi imington Field Office (electronic copy Only)
Mre4tce Coleman, Federal' Highway.Ac€r inistration
Chris Militscher_ Environmental Froteclion Agency- (electronic copy only %
�
Cary Jordan., 'S .Fish and Wildlife Service (ele�,,,ronic copy only)
Travis Wilson ,'C Wildlife Resources Commission (electronie copy only,
Mason 14erndon.. KC.DWQFayetteville Regional Office
File Copy
IM

A r
MCDEWR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Pat McCrory Charles Wakild, P. E.
Governor Director
April 29, 2013
MEMORANDUM
To: Steve Brown, P.E., Project Development Engineer, NCDOT
From: David Wainwright, Division of Water Qualityo
John Skvarla III
Secretary
Subject: Response to the Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report for the Proposed
Rockingham Bypass, Richmond County, TIP R -2501.
This office has reviewed the referenced document dated October 2005; this letter serves as a follow up
response to our comments, submitted electronically, on March 27, 2013. The NC Division of Water
Quality (NCDWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for
activities that impact Waters of the State and U.S., including wetlands and streams. Under 15A NAC 2H
.0500 (.0506[4]), it is the NCDWQ's responsibility to ensure that projects do not result in cumulative
effects or cause a violation of downstream water quality based on reasonably anticipated future impacts.
The NCDWQ has numerous concerns regarding the document. Primarily, we take issue with the age of
the document and data contained therein. More specifically, we have concerns about:
The document was published in 2005, eight years ago with a horizon year of 2020. According to
the STIP information, the project is currently scheduled for construction Post Year, indicating
that project construction is many years away. The project has not been reviewed through the
Merger 01 4B or 4C concurrence points as of this time. This also indicates that project
construction is several years off. That, coupled with several years of construction, will almost
surely put the road opening to traffic at or beyond the year 2020, less than seven years from now.
For these reasons, the horizon year of 2020 no longer seems reasonable.
• There is mention of several new residential and commercial developments that were permitted or
under construction. These development and any new or planned developments should be taken
into account when considering cumulative impacts. This is especially true given that several
developers are /were holding property for commercial development and that much development
has already occurred in the area of the U.S. 74 interchange. This development is a direct result
of the anticipated bypass and should be considered accordingly. It is also stated that several new
or expansions to existing industrial parks are planned, Industrial development, as a class, is a
large contributor to water quality impairments. If there are any industrial facilities that have been
constructed since 2005 then the impacts from there should be considered.
Also, with respect to development in the area, it is stated that "while there is no explicit economic
development purpose for this project, local officials see TIP Project R -2501 as a potential catalyst
for economic development. They are hoping that the combined effects of TIP Project R -2501, the
US 74 Bypass, and the future 1 -73174 corridor, will spur industrial and commercial development."
This raises concerns about all types of potential development that may have occurred or will
occur in the area.
Transportation Permitting Unit rOne
1650 Mari Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1650 ofthCaro na
Location. 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh North Carolina 27601 1 Phoe 919 -807 -63001 FAX: [phone] �y k %
Internet: http / /poi al.ncdenr orglweblwq
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer
B. 15

• Census data considered in the analysis is from 2000. Data from the 2010 census is now available
and should be used to update the analysis.
• There is only one map showing zoning in the project area. It is unclear if the map reflects current
(2005) zoning or anticipated 2020 zoning. Maps showing both should be included so that a
comparison between the two can be made. This is especially true given that future development
and its location is principle to future cumulative impacts.
• Another important factor in the analysis is current and future utility service areas. It is stated that
there is excess wastewater treatment capacity at both plants in the area which means there is room
for expansion and that "officials from all three governing bodies indicated a willingness to
extend existing utility lines to new developments if feasible." It is important to note if utility
service areas have expanded since 2005 and if there are any additional plans to provide new
service to areas in the GISA in the foreseeable future.
• The traffic analysis report referenced in the document is from 1999, fourteen years ago, and uses
a horizon year of 2020. Again, due to the age of this data, the report should be updated with more
recent data and should use a horizon year beyond 2020 for reasons discussed above.
• The GISA includes a portion of subbasin 03 -07 -55 of the Lumber River Basin. As noted in the
document, the Lumber River Basin report states that "In order to prevent aquatic habitat
degradation as a result of increasing development pressure, the subbasin report recommended that
protection measures be put in place immediately." Additionally, as is shown on Figure 4, there
are two Water Supply Watershed Critical Areas partially located within the GISA, another one
just outside of it, and a HQW watershed located partially within the GISA. While the NCDWQ is
concerned about indirect and cumulative impacts to all waters, it is especially concerned about
waters with classifications such as these. It should be demonstrated that all waters within the
GISA will not be negatively impacted by your proposed project, but especially these.
In closing, the NDWQ is under the opinion that the assumptions and information used in the analysis
needs to be updated to reflect more recent data. We also feel that because of this, we are unable to make a
determination that waters within the GISA and surrounding areas will not be degraded from indirect and
cumulative impacts resulting from the proposed project. Additionally, given the current status of the
project, we no longer feel that a horizon year of 2020 is appropriate, as there is a good chance that the
project may not be completed by then.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The NCDOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water
Quality Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality
standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require
additional information, please contact David Wainwright at (919) 807 -6405.
cc: Ronnie Smith, US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Field Office (electronic copy only)
Chris Militscher, Environmental Protection Agency (electronic copy only)
Eric Midkiff, P.E., NCDOT Project Development
File Copy
•

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE
GOVERNOR
February 24, 2012
Mr. Zeke Creech
N. C. State Clearinghouse
Department of Administration
1301 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1301
Dear Mr. Creech:
EUGENE A. CONTI, JR.
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Federal Final Environmental Impact Statement for TIP Project Number R -2501
US I from Sandhill Road (SR 1,971) to.Nort .oF.FoxROad..(SR 1606), Richmond.County,...
Federal -Aid PrcjectNo. NHF -1(1), State Project No. 8.T580501, WBS No. 34437.3.1.
Attached herewith are two (2) paper copies and fourteen (14) CDs of the Federal Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the subject project. Distribution of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement is being made on behalf of the Federal Highway
Administration in accordance with 23 CFR 771. Please note the project cannot be let until the
ROD is issued by FHWA.
Please send any comments, requests or acknowledgement letters for any documents to
Steve L. Brown, Project Development Engineer at the address below, by email at
slbrown @ncdot.gov, or at 919.707.6014.
GJT /kbc
Attachments (2 paper + 14 CDs)
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND EWRONMENTALANALYBIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699 -1548
Sincerel
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit
TELEPHONE: 919 - 707 -6000
FAX: [phone]
WEBS1TE: WWW. .NCDOT.ORG/bOH/PRECONSTRUCT /PE/
LOCATION:
CENTURY CENTER, BUILDING A
1000 BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE
RALEIGH NC 27610
B.17
< -d,
SUBJECT: Federal Final Environmental Impact Statement for TIP Project Number R -2501
US I from Sandhill Road (SR 1,971) to.Nort .oF.FoxROad..(SR 1606), Richmond.County,...
Federal -Aid PrcjectNo. NHF -1(1), State Project No. 8.T580501, WBS No. 34437.3.1.
Attached herewith are two (2) paper copies and fourteen (14) CDs of the Federal Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the subject project. Distribution of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement is being made on behalf of the Federal Highway
Administration in accordance with 23 CFR 771. Please note the project cannot be let until the
ROD is issued by FHWA.
Please send any comments, requests or acknowledgement letters for any documents to
Steve L. Brown, Project Development Engineer at the address below, by email at
slbrown @ncdot.gov, or at 919.707.6014.
GJT /kbc
Attachments (2 paper + 14 CDs)
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND EWRONMENTALANALYBIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699 -1548
Sincerel
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit
TELEPHONE: 919 - 707 -6000
FAX: [phone]
WEBS1TE: WWW. .NCDOT.ORG/bOH/PRECONSTRUCT /PE/
LOCATION:
CENTURY CENTER, BUILDING A
1000 BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE
RALEIGH NC 27610
B.17

COUNTY: RICHP11ON1)
NOTTE? CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADNINISTRATI0N
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
F02: HIGHWAYS AND ROADS
lea
$f
`7
MS RENEE LEDIiILL- EIIRLEY
WPR
CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR
DEPT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES
STATE HTSTORIC PRESERVATION OFF
MSC 4617 - ARCEIVES BUILDING
RALEIGH NC
t
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION ct
CC &PS - DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
DENR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
DEPT OF AGRICULTURE
DEPT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
LUMBER RIVER COG
STATE NUMBER: 12 -E- 4220 -0217
DATE RECEIVED: 02 /28/2012
AGENCY RESPONSE: 03/26/2012
REVIEW CLOSED: 03/29/201.2
a to... -41 P.-I
ell-
IPA
PROJECT INFORMATION 5"(Q)
APPLICANT: N.C. Department of Transportation
TYPE: National Environmental Policy Act
Final Environmental Impact Statement
DE'SC : F EIS for Proposed Improvements to US 1 from Sandhill Road - SR 1971 to North: of
Fox Road -- SR 1606 in Richmond County; TIP #R -2501.
CROSS - REFERENCE NUMBER: 95- E -4G20 -0286 00 -E- 4220 -0079
The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghouse for
intergovernmental review. 'lease review and submit your response by the above
indicated date to 1301 Avail Service Center, Raleigh. NC 27699 -1301.
If additional review time is needed, please contact this office at (919)807 -2425.
AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS :SUBMITTED: -NO COMMENT ❑ COMMENTS ATTACHED
SIGNED BY: DATE:
Ju
q
r
x•�o'

Reep, Mark
From: Brown, Steve L <slbrown @ncdot.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 9:08 AM
To: Reep, Mark
Subject: FW: R -2501
fyi
From: Gary Jordanca ms.00v rmailto:Gary JordanCabfws.00vl
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 2:59 PM
To: Brown, Steve L
Cc: Wilson, Travis W.; Ronnie. [e-mail]; Riffey, Deanna
Subject: R -2501
Steve,
I have reviewed the Final EIS for R -2501, but I am not going to provide any comments. However, we do have one
unresolved issue with the heronry that was discovered last year. I haven't heard from the NEU since my last discussion
with Deanna Riffey back on 10/27/2011. Based on the info she provided, it appeared that it might be possible to avoid all
nests, but it remained to be determined. When is CP4B? We should probably resolve the issue at least by then.
Gary Jordan
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
US Fish and Wildlife Service
PO Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636 -3726
Phone [phone] ext. 32
Fax [phone]
gary iordan(a_fws.gov
®nnail r;arr€*spon prrr;a to and 'rang this senclar is subjipcl to thp N.C.:Public Records i_aw and may bp c:7i,3clospd to third par -tips.
e

R -2501 Pee Dee River Game Land — Section 4f
From: Wilson, Travis W. [ mailto :travis.wilson @ncwildlife.org]
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 20114:14 PM
To: Brown, Steve L
Cc: Reep, Mark; Felix.Davila @dot.gov
Subject: RE: R -2501 Pee Dee River Game Land
WRC does not object to the NCDOT conclusion of a de- minimus effect.
From: Brown, Steve L
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 10:38 AM
To: Wilson, Travis W.
Cc: Mark Reep; Felix.Davila2do, t.gov
Subject: RE: R -2501 Pee Dee River Game Land
Hey Travis:
Just following up on our 4(f) issue on R- 2501 ... Any word from Mr. Parsons on this?
Thanks,
Steve
Steve L. Brown, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1548
PDEA - Century Center Building A
1020 Birch Ridge Drive
Raleigh, NC 27610
slbrown2ncdot. gov
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
From: Brown, Steve L
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 11:51 AM
To: Wilson, Travis W.
o]

Cc: Mark Reep; Felix.Davila2do, t.gov
Subject: RE: R -2501 Pee Dee River Game Land
Travis:
Thanks for all your help on this coordination. For the purposes of 4(f) and this property, we are
considering the project's effect to be a de- minimis impact on the Pee Dee River Game Land.
Could you please review the attached Concurrence request memo and, if you have no comments
or concerns, forward to Mr. Parsons for review and concurrence?
Thanks,
Steve
Steve L. Brown, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1548
PDEA - Century Center Building A
1020 Birch Ridge Drive
Raleigh, NC 27610
s1brown2ncdot. gov
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
From: Wilson, Travis W.
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 11:04 AM
To: Brown, Steve L
Cc: Mark Reep
Subject: RE: R -2501 Pee Dee River Game Land
Sorry for the delayed response, my computer has been out of commission for a couple of
weeks. The area described as buffer is not a separate designation. "Buffer" is being used to
describe one of the functions not land use or designation. The uses of this area are the same as
the uses of the remaining lands in this tract. Hope this answers your question if not let me
know.
B.21

BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE
GOVERNOR
xf m
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
October 11, 2011
EUGENE A. CONTI, JR.
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: William P. Parsons
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
FROM: Steve Brown, PE, Project Planning Engineer
Project Development & Environmental Analysis anch
SUBECT: R -2501, Richmond County, N.C., US 1 Improvements from
Sandhill Road (SR 197 1) to Marston Road (SR 100 1)
This follows our recent e -mail correspondence from May 25 and September 2, 2011 regarding
the proposed US 1 improvements near the Pee Dee River Game Land in Richmond County. TIP
Project R -2501 extends from Sandhill Road (SR 1971) south of Rockingham to Marston Road
(SR 1001) in Marston, a distance of about 19 miles. At the Pee Dee River Game Land, the
current design proposes to widen US 1 and Osborne Road, impacting approximately 2.4 acres of
the property along the road frontage.
Your May 25, 2011 e -mail correspondence indicated that the proposed widening should have a
minimal effect on the property. It may remove a buffer between the existing highway and a large
open land complex (20 acres) managed for wildlife with emphasis on dove and other small game
species that also includes hunting opportunities for local sportsmen. Since the primary purposes
of the Game Land are for wildlife and timber management and public recreational opportunities
for hunting, fishing, and observing nature, the site is subject to Section 4(f) of the DOT Act of
1966. Section 4(f) protects the use and function of publicly owned parks, recreation areas,
wildlife /waterfowl refuges and historic properties. A transportation plan can only use land from
a 4(f) resource when there are no other feasible or prudent alternatives and when the planning
minimizes all possible harm to the resource.
This is to request your concurrence that the project will have a minimal impact on the Game
Land and will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the property
for protection under Section 4(f). If you have any questions or need any additional information,
please contact me at 919- 707 -6014 or at [e-mail].
SB /mlr
Attachments
cc: Travis Wilson, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Mark Reep, P.E., Florence & Hutcheson, Inc.
Felix Davila, P.E., Federal Highway Administration
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] CENTURY CENTER BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1000 BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOTORG /DON /PRECONSTRUCT/PEJ RALEIGH NC 27610
RALEIGH NC 27699 -1548 B.22

Travis W. Wilson
Eastern Region Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
1142 I -85 Service Rd.
Creedmoor, NC 27522
Phone: [phone] ext. 6
Fax: [phone]
Travis. Wilson2ncwildlife. org
From: Brown, Steve L
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 9:23 AM
To: Wilson, Travis W.
Cc: Mark Reep
Subject: RE: R -2501 Pee Dee River Game Land
Travis:
We are working through our 4(f) analysis on the Pee Dee River Game Land and I have a few
follow up questions for Mr. Parsons:
Based on the description of the whole parcel, it appears that it could be classified as a multiple
use property (hunting, fishing, observing nature, wildlife management, timber management)
for 4(l) purposes. You described a buffer area and hunting area adjacent to the proposed
project that would be affected.
Is this buffer areal hunting area a separate, distinct and definable area within the parcel as a
whole? And if so, is hunting /wildlife management its main function? Does this portion have
any other functions?
I appreciate your help with this issue,
Steve
Steve L. Brown, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1548
PDEA - Century Center Building A
1020 Birch Ridge Drive
Raleigh, NC 27610
B.23

slbrown2ncdot. gov
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
From: Mark Reep fmailto:mreep2flohut.comI
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 10:28 AM
To: Wilson, Travis W.; Brown, Steve L
Subject: RE: R -2501 Pee Dee River Game Land
Travis,
Thank you very much for providing this information.
Mark
Mark L. Reep, P.E.
Florence & Hutcheson — Consulting Engineers
5121 Kingdom Way, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27607
mreep2flohut.com
919 -851 -6066 (Office) ext. 138
919 - 851- 6846(Fax)
www.flohut.com
This message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This
communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or confidential. If you
are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, use or
disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please
delete all copies of this message and notify the sender immediately kindly replying to this e -mail.
From: Wilson, Travis W. f mailto :travis.wilsonLncwildlife.org
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 9:45 AM
To: mreepLflohut.com; Brown, Steve L
Subject: FW: R -2501 Pee Dee River Game Land
Mark and Steve, looks like I sent my email this morning a few minutes too early. Please review
the emails below, I believe all pertinent information is provided but let me know if you need
anything further.
Travis W. Wilson

Eastern Region Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
1142 I -85 Service Rd.
Creedmoor, NC 27522
Phone: [phone] ext. 6
Fax: [phone]
Travis. Wilson2ncwildlife. org
From: Parsons, William P
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 8:56 AM
To: Wilson, Travis W.
Cc: Warburton, Gordon S; Beverly, W. Eli
Subject: RE: R -2501 Pee Dee River Game Land
Travis,
The widening of US 1 will have a minimum effect on Pee Dee River Game Lands. Based on the
photo provided by you the widening may remove a buffer that exist between the existing
highway corridor and a large open land complex(20 acres) managed for wildlife with emphasis
on dove and other small game species. Approximately 10 acres is planted annually to provide
supplemental food and hunting opportunities for local sportsman. The highway project as
proposed may reduce the number of acres that can be safely hunted. The parcel (Diggs Tract) is
approximately 1659 acres and was purchased using funding from CWMTF, Natural Heritage
and North American Wetland Conservation Act ( NAWCA). NAWCA provided $1,000,000 of
federal funding for the project.
The parcel is owned by NCWRC and is part of the Pee Dee River Game Lands. Primary
purposes include wildlife and timber management, recreational opportunities for the public
including hunting, fishing and observing nature. A boating access will be built in the near future
to allow public access to the Pee Dee River.
There has not been a management plan prepared to date. When completed the plan will include
management recommendations for wildlife including species of concern such as the timber
rattler which is found on the tract. There are designated natural areas found on the property.
Large wetlands along the Pee Dee River are used extensively by waterfowl and hunters.
Hope this provides the information you need. Let me know if you need additional information.
From: Wilson, Travis W.
Sent: Monday, May 16, 20114:29 PM
To: Parsons, William P
Cc: Warburton, Gordon S; Beverly, W. Eli
Subject: R -2501 Pee Dee River Game Land
B.25

Bill as we discussed over the phone NCDOT will be widening US 1 in Richmond County in the
vicinity of Pee Dee River Game Land. In the attached photo you can see where the widening
will impact the tract that abuts US 1 south of Rockingham. Since this project will be constructed
with Federal Highway funds NCDOT is conducting a 4(f) evaluation of this impact. NCDOT
will need to determine 1) if the parcel qualifies as a 4f property and 2) determine what impact the
project will have on the 4(f) property. This evaluation is supplemental to the NEPA process, our
past involvement still applies, and does not directly affect right of negotiations. Below is a list
of informational needs NCDOT will evaluate.
• Parcel owner? WRC or Progress
• If WRC owned: what were the funding sources for the purchase? Some funding sources
such as federal grants may be applicable to determining if 4(f) applies
• Land use: What activities is the parcel utilized for
• Management Plan: Aside from use, specifically for 4(f) it's important to document
management activities outlined for T &E species or migratory birds.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Travis W. Wilson
Eastern Region Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
1142 I -85 Service Rd.
Creedmoor, NC 27522
Phone: [phone] ext. 6
Fax: [phone]
Travis. Wilson2ncwildlife. org
KWO

Kathy Peterson
P.O. Box 483
Hartfield, VA 23071
November 19, 2012
Mr. John F. Sullivan 111, Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601
Dear Mr. Sullivan,
This letter is in regards to the R-2501 Highway Project in Richmond County NC that
includes my property in the proposed construction corridor. Below are my comments to be
included in the Final Environmental Impact Statement.
Within the highway corridor is a significant natural heritage area of regional importance
where bog oatgrass, a state threatened plant and a federal species of concern occurs:This,
area and species are not mentioned in the Natural Resources Report or the FEIS. I believe
this to be an omission worthy of discussion and mention in the FEIS. North Carolina
Department of Transportation says it is important species — part of the natural heritage of
the state. The State Highway Department says it wants to be an environmentalqeader. How
can this be ornitted from such an important document as the Final Environmental Impact
Statement for this project?
Also, during the public hearing on October 30, 2012 at Rockingham High School, a
speaker for Mr. Brown, a landowner in the preferred bypass corridor, made the mention of
the presence of shiners on his property on Sandhill Rd. and said there did not-ap
I PeAr to
have been an fish studies in the Environmental Impact Statement. I am 411
y co okq!qnedAbbut
this. The Cape Fear shiner is an imperiled minnow species endemic (found -nowherle"61se. in
the world) to the Cape Fear River basin in the North Carolina piedmont. Pei 4apps there are
shiners elsewhere in the corridor; perhaps on our property.
r-4
It was also said by the speaker that survey dates in the Environmental Impact Statement for
rare species show only 2 days of field work not during the optimal search seasons for cue'
of the species. An NCDOT official, Drew Joyner said there were other reports that Mr.
Brown didn't see. Were there more than two days of field work? What reports show that?
Why aren't those reports available to the public during the hearing and commenting period?
B.27

I look forward to a response to these issues. I am very appreciative to you, Mr. Sullivan, if
you will consider these matters in your deliberations. I ask that you do not approve the
Record of Decision and insist that these issues be investigated thoroughly.
cc: Gregory Thorpe, Manager PDEA
NCDOT
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Mr. Pete Benjamin, Ecological Services Supervisor
USDI FWS Raleigh Field Office
PO Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636
Congressman Larry Kissell
1632 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Senator Richard Burr
217 RUSSELL
SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Senator Kay Hagan
521 DIRKSEN
SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
I=

Donna M. Ozinsk!
305 Vmbizrfizg Dr.
bluo 8v-11, PO 19422
November 21, 2012
Mr. John F. Sullivan 111, Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601
Dear Mr. Sullivan,
RE: R-2501 Richmond County NC US Highway I Bypass Project
Will you please accept the following comments to the administrative record of the
Final Environmental Impact Statement for this project? I am writing as a concerned
taxpayer and property owner in the proposed bypass project.
The Ecosystem Enhancement Project (EEP) at McDonald's Pond is protected by
NC State law. This EEP is designed to preserve wetlands, streams and related habitats,
specifically to mitigate against the high impacts of wetland or stream destruction. To
allow a highway through even a portion of an EEP project would set a precedent for areas
with EEP conservation easements.
Conservation easements are intended to protect mitigated wetlands. These
easements should be set in stone and protected. Allowing this road project to destroy any
part of the McDonald's Pond EEP is a decision fraught with the risk of sending the
message that public and private lands donated for conservation purposes cannot rely upon
government officials to consider the intent of conservation easements and hold to the
letter of the law in protecting them.
Mr. Sullivan, I ask that you please consider these comments in your deliberations
on the record of decision.
Sincerely,
Donna M. Osinski
time

Frances K. Osinski
365 Founders Village
Lansdale, PA 19446
November 21, 2012
Mr. John F. Sullivan III, Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601
Dear Mr. Sullivan,
Thank you for your kindness and consideration in allowing these remarks to
the administrative record of the Final Environmental Impact Statement of T.I.P.
Project R-2501 which proposes to destroy the highly rated wetlands on our
property.
My comments are that the ICE states that most of the proposed project area is
unlikely to experience development due to limitations such as environmental
restrictions (wetlands, floodplains and water supply watersheds)." Why then,
despite these environmental restrictions, does the Final Environmental Impact
Statement propose to construct a highway through these areas which include
Headwaters, Significant Wetlands, Water Supply Areas and an Ecbsystem
Enhancement Project (EEP)? The preferred bypass corridor plan intends to directly
destroy wetlands and impact the area with run-off pollution, noise pollution and
many other detrimental effects.
I question how environmental restrictions are considered enough to prevent
development but not enough to prevent the selection of a major highway corridor
though these areas.
Mr. Sullivan, may I urge you to consider these questions in your decision
making process and give careful thought to the matter of granting permission to
devastate areas which, when spoiled, cannot be replaced or restored to their former
glory?
Sincerely,
Frances K. Osinski
10
C14
z
CO
LL
JJ
two]

Lynne Stephens
5174 CR 113
Clyde, OH 43410
November 19, 2012
Mr. John F. Sullivan III
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601
Dear Mr. Sullivan,
RE: R2501 Richmond County NC US Highway 1 Bypass Project
Thank you for allowing these comments on the Final Environmental Impact
Statement to be admitted as part of the administrative record prior to the Record of
Decision on this proj

The purpose, as written in the FEIS is:
"This project will reduce travel time; reduce congestion in downtown Rockingham by
diverting through traffic and truck traffic from local streets; and improve mobility on the
designated US i- strategic highway corridor."
Given that travel time and congestion will not be significantly affected, the only
remaining aspect of the project purpose is to consider is the improved mobility on the
"US strategic highway corridor." The FEIS states that current conditions do not fit their
vision: "the vision plan designates this portion of US 1 as a future freeway with high
mobility, full control of access, speeds of at least 55 mph, an a minimum four-lane
divided facility." They have a vision and want to implement it, despite a lack of clearly
articulated need.
These statements are simply saying that the purpose of this FEIS is to construct a US
strategic highway. The Courts (Citizens against Burlington v. Busey) have specified that a
purpose and need must not be so narrow as to "define reasonable alternatives out of
existence." This "does not give agencies license to fulfill their own prophecies, whatever
the parochial impulses that drive them." In other words, the purpose for this FEIS is
written in such a way that alternatives aren't adequately given a chance, thus leading to
the self-fulfilling proposal of the bypass. The courts say this is unacceptable.
Mr. Sullivan, for these compelling reasons, I ask you to decide against this
unneeded project and the proposed spending of $26o million tax dollars. Thank you for
your time and consideration of this matter. I look forward to your response. Kindest
regards.
Sincerely yours,
Lynne U. Stephens
W
13.32

B.33

M. -

73 hi / `
November 21, 2012
WYNN
Wasbington, DC 20500
V 0 IV
'm � - Mw 4; i
u -win
County NC US Hi way I Bypass ProjecL
r
for your &Mistmcc Mattez I can be coutwted -8
Kinden rcprds.
B.35

W- V_
00 COMMERCE STREET, = £_
TEXAS
r
% Reply to
Attention of:
l-I as
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
21 February 2012
SUBJECT: Notes of 26 January 2012 appeal meeting for approved jurisdictional determination (file
number SAW ®1995 - 00459) by Eddie O's Enterprises Ltd.
1. An appeal meeting was held on 26 January 2012 at the Loch Haven Golf Course in Rockingham,
North Carolina. The meeting, which began at approximately 0930 hours, was regarding property
owned by Eddie O's Enterprises LTD (the appellant) located at 612 Loch Haven Road in
Rockingham, Richmond County, North Carolina. A copy of the sign in sheet can be found in
Appendix A. The meeting followed the agenda provided to the Wilmington District (the district) and
appellant by the Southwestern Division review officer (RO) via email on I 1 January 2012. A copy
of the agenda can be found in Appendix B. The following is a list of attendees:
Mr. Elliott Carman — Regulatory Appeals Review Officer, Southwestern Division, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers
Ms. Lynne Stephens — representing the appellant (Eddie O's Enterprises LTD)
Mr. Burl Rose - Loch Haven Golf Course
Mr. Lloyd Raleigh — Appellant's consultant
Mr. Ronnie Smith — Project Manager, Regulatory Branch, Wilmington District, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers
Mr. Dale Beter — Wilmington Field Office Chief, Regulatory Branch, Wilmington District,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
2. Introductions and Opening Remarks
a. The RO read an opening statement (Appendix C) that explained the appeal meeting's purpose
was to assist the RO in summarizing and clarifying both the appellant's request for appeal (RFA) and
the district's rationale for their decision.
b. The appellant indicated they believe the wetland acreage should be expanded beyond that
which was mapped in the district's approved jurisdictional determination (AJD).
c. The district indicated they will assist in any way they can with this appeal.
Pagel of 6
IC W

CES WD -PD -O
SUBJECT: Notes of 26 January 2012 appeal meeting for approved jurisdictional determination (file
number SAW - 1995 - 00459) by Eddie O's Enterprises LTD
3. Reason for Appeal
a. The appellant confirmed that the following reason for appeal was accurate: The District
incorrectly applied current regulatory criteria and associated guidance for identifying and delineating
wetlands. More specifically, the on -site wetlands should be larger than that illustrated on the
district's map.
b. In their RFA, the appellant asserted that their site contains unique habitat as well as habitat
suitable for threatened and endangered (T &E) species. The appellant clarified that they believe this
habitat should be part of the district's consideration. The RO informed the appellant that possible
effects to T &E species are part of a district's considerations in verifying or issuing permits, but not a
part of their consideration relative to jurisdiction. Therefore, the T&E component does not have any
bearing on the appeal.
c. The appellant also expressed concern in their RFA that they were not notified of a 1999 draft
EIS for the R2501 -US 1 Rockingham Bypass Project. The district indicated that the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) was lead agency on the project and were the ones responsible for
notifying the public about the proposed project. The district also indicated that a draft EIS was
circulated by FHWA in 1999 and a supplement in 2001, and that the EIS had not been finalized.
Finally, the district indicated that they were a cooperating agency (non- signatory) and expected to be
notified and provided a copy of the final EIS.
4. Administrative Record
a. The district provided a summary of the contents of the administrative record (AR) and all
parties confirmed they had the same contents.
b. The district and appellant were asked if there was anything that should be in the AR, but wasn't
(was the AR complete).
(1) It was noted that this appeal is unique in that the AJD was prepared for a party other than
the appellant, but provided to the appellant because of their substantial legal interest in the property
(they are the landowner). As a result, the appellant did not submit information to the district as part
of the AJD request. Therefore, the district did not exclude any of the appellant's information from
the AR. The appellant did express concern that the district should have included more information in
the AR to better support their decision. The appellant's specific concerns were discussed during the
"points for clarification" and "other questions /comments" sections from the agenda (Appendix B)
and not discussed further during this portion of the agenda.
(2) The district indicated the AR was complete.
Page 2 of 6
B.37

CESWD -PD -O
SUBJECT: Notes of 26 January 2012 appeal meeting for approved jurisdictional determination (file
number SAW- 1995- 00459) by Eddie O's Enterprises LTD
5. Points for Clarification
a. The district indicated they mailed the AJD to the appellant on 17 August 2011. The appellant
indicated that they received the AJD from their corporate office on 29 August 2011. Their corporate
office received it sometime the week of 22 August 2011. The appellant noted the difficulty they
experienced in obtaining the wetland delineation map from the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT). The appellant indicated they received the map from the NCDOT on 9
September 2011 and met with them on the site to discuss the AJD and the proposed project on 17
October 2011.' The appellant indicated they contacted the district and the South Atlantic Division
(SAD) on 24 October 2011. The appellant further indicated SAD responded on 28 October and
advised them that they could file the appeal. The appellant mailed their RFA via certified letter to
the district and SAD on 29 October 2011. The district indicated they received the RFA on 31
October 2011. The appellant indicated their records showed that SAD received the RFA on 1
November 2011.2
b. The appellant became aware of the Richmond County GIS wetland map as they received a copy
of this map as part of a recent appraisal performed on their property. The appellant indicated that
Richmond County uses US Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Map data
to create their county wetland GIS map. The appellant noticed a discrepancy between this map and
the district's AJD map (the County GIS map illustrates more wetlands than that shown on the
district's map). It was noted that the NWI maps are based on aerial photography and not actual data
' The appellant noted in an email dated 12 February 2012, that they did not meet with NDCOT on site to discuss the AJD as
stated in Section 5.a. above, but rather at the NCDOT offices in Aberdeen, NC.
2 33 CFR 331.5(a) states, "The RFA must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of the [appeal form]."
RGL 06 -01, section 3(a) clarifies that "day I" is the date of the appeal form and "day 60" is the 60'' calendar day after the date of
the appeal form. RGL 06 -01 section 3(a) also clarifies that," when `day 60' is a traditional nonworking day (e.g., a holiday or
weekend), the 60 day timeframe is extended to the next business day."
Day one in this case would be 17 August 2011 (the date of the appeal form) and day 60 would be Sunday, 16 October 2011.
Because day 60 fell on a traditional nonworking day (e.g. a weekend), the 60 day timeframe should be extended to the next
business day which was 17 October 2011.
While SAD received the RFA after this date, it should be noted that the district provided incorrect and inconsistent direction in
multiple documents to the appellant regarding their appeal rights. The district's AJD letter dated 17 August 2011 as well as the
accompanying "notification of jurisdictional determination" form incorrectly directed the appellant to send their RFA to the
district instead of the division. In addition, the district's AJD letter incorrectly advised the appellant that the RFA must be
"...received by the district within 60 days of the date you received the [appeal form] or receipt of a wetland delineation map from
the NCDOT." As noted during the appeal meeting, the appellant received the wetland delineation map from the NCDOT on 9
September 2011 and the RFA was received at the district office on 31 October 2011 and SAD on 1 November 2011. Because the
district incorrectly advised the appellant regarding their appeal rights, SAD determined this RFA was timely and accepted the
appeal as it was received by both the district and SAD within 60 days of the date the appellant received their wetland delineation
map from NCDOT (day 60 in that case would be 8 November).
Page 3 of 6
10M.

CESWD -PD -O
SUBJECT: Notes of 26 January 2012 appeal meeting for approved jurisdictional determination (file
number SAW -1995- 00459) by Eddie O's Enterprises LTD
from field work. The district indicated they are aware of the county data, but did not use it as
supporting information for this project as they believe their CIS data (such as their LIDAR maps) are
more accurate. The appellant supplied a map that compares the Richmond County CIS map with the
district's AJD map. The RO provided a copy of this map to the district via email on I February
2012. A copy of this map can be found in Appendix D.
c. The appellant expressed concern that the district's AJD map did not illustrate Watery Branch
within their property. The district indicated that beavers impounded Watery Branch within the site.
Therefore, they did not observe a stream with a defined bed/bank or other indicators of an ordinary
high water mark (OHWM). The district also indicated they did not identify this beaver impoundment
as an "impoundment of jurisdictional waters" in section II.B. La of the AJD form because they
believe this is specific to man -made impoundments. Because the district did not classify this beaver
impoundment as a stream, they did not illustrate Watery Branch on the aerial photograph that
identified the waters of the U.S. within the site. The appellant noted that thick growth exists along
Watery Branch within their property and that they found areas with bed and bank and other OHWMs
within the site. The appellant asked the district if they had actually gone into these brushy areas.
The district indicated they had not.
d. The district indicated that the on -site wetlands are adjacent (abutting) Watery Branch, a
relatively permanent water (RPW), which is a tributary to Speeds Creek, a tributary to Solomons
Creek, a tributary to the Pee Dee River (a traditionally navigable water). The district indicated the
only information used to classify Watery Branch as an RPW was the stream order (it is a first order
stream), the size of its watershed (drains 650 acres), and how it is illustrated on the USGS
topographic map (is shown as a solid blue line).
e. The district indicated they used the Corps 1987 wetland delineation manual ('87 manual) as
well as the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Regional Supplement (regional supplement) to delineate
the on -site wetlands and that the lack of a reference to the regional supplement in section C of their
"notification of jurisdictional determination" form was an error. It was noted that the AR did include
data forms for the regional supplement.
f. The district indicated that both the '87 manual and regional supplement data forms were for the
same locations and were prepared and submitted to the district by the consultant. The district also
indicated the consultant completed the '87 manual data forms concurrent with their field work of 16
April 2007. The consultant then prepared the regional supplement data forms as part of their 2011
AJD request. The regional data forms contained some updated language (such as "riverine swamp
forest" as the landform classification versus the "mixed hardwood" described on the `87 manual data
forms) to be consistent with the North Carolina Wetland Assessment methodology introduced by the
district in 2008.
g. The district indicated that their reference to a previous determination dated 12 May 1999 in
section IV.A (supporting data) of the AJD form was in error as the field notes for this previous
jurisdictional determination lacked information on this site.
Page 4 of 6
IC =

CESWD -PD -O
SUBJECT: Notes of 26 January 2012 appeal meeting for approved jurisdictional determination (file
number SAW -1995- 00459) by Eddie O's Enterprises LTD
h. The district indicated that the "W13, W14" located at the top right of each of the '87 data forms
indicated that the data forms were used to characterize both wetland communities 13 and 14. These
communities are illustrated as W13 and W14 on the district's AJD map.
i. The district clarified that the "W 14" shown on the AJD map represents wetland community 14
and not the location of the two data points used to characterize the on -site wetlands. The district also
indicated that both data forms contain the same coordinates which place the data points somewhere
in the middle of the wetland area; however, the vegetation described on the data forms was more
consistent with a disturbed area such as the power line easement on the north side of the property.
The district indicated that the consultant confirmed both data points were taken within the power line
easement. The district also clarified that while the exact location of the data points were not
illustrated on their AJD map, that the upland data points were typically taken within ten to twenty
feet from the wetland data point. It was noted that the location of the data points were not on the
Eddie O's property. Finally, the district confirmed that there were problems with the data forms, but
that they were at the mercy of the data that the consultant provided them.3
6. Other Questions /Comments
a. The appellant referenced a letter they received from the NCDOT in 2009 that indicated there
would be personnel on their property conducting field work associated with the R2501 -US 1
Rockingham Bypass Project. The appellant asked why the AR did not contain any information
regarding field work conducted in 2009. The district indicated they responded to the AJD request
that they received in 2011 and did not have any knowledge of the 2009 NCDOT letter. The RO
requested that the appellant provide the district and the RO a copy of the 2009 NCDOT letter. The
RO also asked that the district provide the appellant and the RO a copy of the 2011 NCDOT AJD
request. The appellant provided a copy of the NCDOT letter via email on 30 January 2012. The
district provided a copy of their 2011 AJD request via email on 30 January 2012. Copies of the
NCDOT letter and the NCDOT AJD request are found in Appendices E and F respectively.
b. The appellant expressed concern that the climactic conditions were noted as "normal" on the
AJD form when drought conditions existed at the time the field work was conducted (2007). The
district indicated they typically consider drought conditions as part of an AJD.
c. The appellant expressed concern that two areas were identified as "upland" on the district's
AJD map when these areas were at the same elevation (as shown on the district's LIDAR map) as
areas marked as "wetland." The appellant also noted that there was one area marked as "wetland"
that was shown at a higher elevation on the LIDAR map as the wetland area around it. The district
indicated that the LIDAR image appeared consistent with the wetland map submitted by the
consultant and that while there are inconsistencies between the LIDAR and the JD map, that the
LIDAR is just another tool used and is not the final authority on wetland boundaries. The appellant
acknowledged this fact.
3 In an email dated 14 February 2012, the appellant suggested that, "...the data points were incomplete and that a precise location
could not be determined by these co-ordinates."
Page 5 of 6
IC M

CESWD -PD -O
SUBJECT: Notes of 26 January 2012 appeal meeting for approved jurisdictional determination (file
number SAW -1995 -00459) by Eddie O's Enterprises LTD
7. Conclusion and site visit
a. The RO discussed the next steps in the appeal process including the memorandum for record as
well as possible outcomes of the appeal process.
b. The appeal meeting concluded and was followed by the site visit. Three different vegetative
communities were observed during the site visit: 1) forested wetland, 2) upland, and 3) disturbed
wetland community within the power line easement.4
8. Review - On 7 February 2012, the RO forwarded via email a draft Memorandum for Record
(MFR) summarizing the appeal meeting topics and site visit to the appellant and SAW for review and
comment.
a. In an email dated 13 February 2012, SAW stated, "I do not have any questions or comments
concerning the Draft MFR."
b. In an emails dated 12 and 14 February 2012, the appellant provided comments for sections 5.a.,
5.i. and 7.b. above. These comments are included as footnotes in the respective sections.
Elliott Carman
Administrative Appeals Review Officer
4 In an email dated 14 February 2012, the appellant suggested that number two (upland) be modified as follows, "2.) Upland,
including the potential areas in the delineated wetlands where there were inconsistencies."
Page 6 of 6
IC

CESAW -RG (1145b)
SAW- 1995 -00459
MEMORANDUM FOR COMMANDER, SOUTH ATLANTIC DIVISION
6 July 2012
SUBJECT: Re- Evaluation and Final District Decision on Approved Jurisdiction Determination
SAW- 1995 - 00459/ Eddy O's Enterprises, Limited.
1. Reference is made to your 7 June 2012 Administrative Appeal Decision, whereby the
Approved Jurisdiction Determination (AJD) was remanded to the District for reconsideration and
re- evaluation. In your decision, you stated the following reason why the appeal has merit:
a. Because the appellant's property contained more than one community type, the
District did not correctly follow current regulatory criteria and associated guidance for identifying
and delineating wetlands when they used two sample points within a single disturbed
community to represent that of all the community types within the appellant's property.
2. To address the reasons for why you determined the appeal has merit, you requested the
District complete the following actions:
a. The district must adequately document how they characterized the hydrology,
vegetation and soils characteristics for each community type within the site. The administrative
record should be revised accordingly to document and reflect the factual data and this analysis.
3. On 2 July 2012, the District revisited the portion of appellant's property within the highway
project study area to re- evaluate the AJD and to document the hydrology, vegetation and soil
characteristics in each community type. Data from this field event were collected in accordance
with procedures outlined in the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual and the supporting Atlantic
Gulf Coastal Plain Supplement (to the 1987 Manual).
4. The District has completed its documentation and re- evaluation of the AJD associated with
the appellant's property. The wetland delineation remains unchanged as a result of the re-
evaluation. The District believes that the actions requested under #2a, above, have been
addressed.
11M

2
5. The POC on this matter is Mr. Ronnie D. Smith, Project Manager. Mr. Smith can be
reached by phone at 910 - 251 -4829, or by email at: [e-mail].
FILENAME: 20120705 SAWs Memo to the ARO — SAW- 1995- 00459.doc.7a.doc
CESAW -RG -L /SMITH /aef
CES V
��(P ;2
CESAW-R /FILE
STEVEN A. BAKER
Colonel, EN
Commanding
Enclosures
Copy Furnished
Eddy O's Enterprises, LTD
Attn: Ms Lynne Stephens
717 West Dunlap 110
Phoenix, Arizona 85021
BCF:
CESAW- RG- L/SMITH
CESAW- RG- UBETER
.,

29
U.S Depar #men#
of Transportafion
Federal Highway
Administration
Ms. Lynne Stephens
Eddie O's Enterprises LTD
717 West Dunlap 110
Phoenix, AZ 85021
Dear Ms. Stephens:
North Carolina Division 310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601
March 8, 2013 (919) 856 -4346
(919) 747 -7030
http: / /www.fhwa.dot.gov /ncdiv/
In Reply Refer To:
HDA -NC
Thank you for your letter dated November 21, 2012 to the President of the United States
commenting on the Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed improvements to US
from Sandhill Road to Marston Road in Richmond County, North Carolina. The letter was
forwarded by the White House to the Federal Highway Administration for our review and
response.
We investigated your concerns regarding the appeal to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) on the approved jurisdictional determination of wetlands on the Eddie O's Property
(Loch Haven Golf Course). As a result of your appeal, the USACE issued a memorandum on
July 6, 2012 indicating that it had completed its documentation and re- evaluation of the approved
jurisdiction determination and concluded that the wetland delineation remains unchanged.
Your comments are noted and a detailed response will be reflected in the upcoming Record of
Decision. If you have any questions or need additional information regarding this project, please
contact Mr. Felix Davila, Preconstruction and Environment Engineer, at (919) 747 -7021 or
felix.davila @dot.gov.
Sincerely,
For John F. Sullivan, III, P.E.
Division Administrator
Enclosure
cc: Edward M. Osinski, Jr /Eddie O's Enterprises, LTD
Derrick Weaver, PDEA NCDOT
Marie Pettiford, OST
I:] E, El!

November 21, 2012
President Barack Obama
The White douse
16010 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
YPeterson
P.O. Box
J7ar freld, VA 23071
This letter is in regards to the T.I.P. R -2501 US1 Bypass Highway Project in Richmond
County NC that includes my property in the proposed construction corridor. Below are my
comments to be included in the Final Environmental Impact Statement.
Within the highway corridor is a significant natural heritage area of regional importance
where bog oatgrass, a state threatened plant and a federal species of concern occurs. This area
and species are not mentioned in the Natural Resources Report or the FEIS. I believe this to
be an omission worthy of discussion and mention in the FEIS. North Carolina Department of
Transportation says it is important species — part of the natural heritage of the state. The State
Highway Department says it wants to be an environmental leader. How can this be omitted
from such an important document as the Final Environmental Impact Statement for this
project?
Also. during the public hearing on October 30, 2012 at Rockingham High School, a speaker
for Mr. Brown, a landowner in the preferred bypass corridor, made the retention of the
presence of shiners on his property on Sandhi[[ Rd. and said there did not appear to have
been any fish studies in the Environmental Impact Statement, I am concerned about this. The
Cape Fear shiner is an imperiled minnow species endemic (found nowhere else in the world)
to the Cape Fear River basin in the North Carolina piedmont. Perhaps there are shiners
elsewhere in the corridor, perhaps on our property.
It was also said by the speaker that survey dates in the Environmental Impact Statement for
rare species show only 2 days of field work not during the optimal search seasons for one of
the species. An NCDO T official, brew Joyner said there were other reports that Mr. Brown
didn't see. Were there more than two days of field work? What reports show that? Why aren't
those reports available to the public during the hearing and commenting period?
It appears that this project is not addressing many environmental issues. l am very
appreciative to you, Mr. President, if you will look into this matter on my behalf. I ask that
you intervene prior to the Record of Decision and insist that these issues be investigated
thoroughly.
k' ..
W
.,

W-j
US. Department
of Transportation
Federal Highway
Administration
Ms. Kathy Peterson
P.O. Box 483
Hartfield, VA 23071
Dear Ms. Peterson:
North Carolina Division 310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601
April 23, 2013 (919) 856 -4346
(919) 747 -7030
http: / /www.fhwa.dot.gov /ncdiv/
In Reply Refer To:
HDA -NC
Thank you for your letter, dated November 21, 2012, to the President of the United States
commenting on the Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed improvements to US 1
from Sandhill Road to Marston Road in Richmond County, North Carolina. The letter was
forwarded by the White House to the Federal Highway Administration for our review and
response.
Your comments are noted, and a detailed response will be reflected in the upcoming Record of
Decision. If you have any questions or need additional information regarding this project, please
contact Mr. Felix Davila, Preconstruction and Environment Engineer, at (919) 747 -7021 or
felix.davila @dot.gov.
Sincerely,
/s/ Clarence W. Coleman, Jr.
For John F. Sullivan, III, P.E.
Division Administrator
cc: Derrick Weaver, PDEA NCDOT
Marie Pettiford, OST
File: NHF -1(1)
Reading File: 2013d23pe01.fd
FDavila:dkr:03 /23/13
M.

Mr. John F. Sullivan
US, Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
North Carolina Division
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 276011
Dear Mr. Sullivan,
P rm
The purpose of this letter is to respond to your letter to us of March 8,
2013 regarding the request from the White House for your response. It is our
opinion that your staff may have misunderstood the concerns that were raised.
Per our appeal with the USAGE which was found to have merit, it was
noted that the USAGE district relied on faulty data from the consultant hired by
the NCDOT. The USACE corrected that data. They instructed that the data
provided to the USAGE from the NCDOT should be revised to document and
reflect the new data regarding the hydrology, vegetation and soil characteristics
of the wetland area within the jurisdictional delineation, as per the USACE's field
event Of July 2, 2012.
Sincerely,
Lynne O. Stephens
cc: Edward M. Osinski Jr.
President Barack Obama
Felix Davila v--�
Derrick Weaver

nk
U:S laepartrrlet
of Ti r=ftation
Federal Highway
Administration
Ms. Lynne Stephens
Eddie O's Enterprises LTD
Loch Haven Golf Center
P.O. Box 2500
Rockingham, NC 28380
Dear Ms. Stephens:
North Carolina Division 310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601
.Tune 27, 2013 (919) 856 -4346
(919) 7477030
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ncdiv/
In Reply Refer To:
HDA -NC
Thank you for your June 12, 2013 letter commenting on the Environmental Impact Statement for
the proposed improvements to US I from Sandhill Road to Marston Road in Richmond County,
North Carolina.
Regarding your appeal to the U, S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the District revisited the
portion of the property subject to the appeal to re- evaluate the approved jurisdictional
determination and to document the hydrology, vegetation, and soil characteristics in each
community type. We understand the USACE sent you a copy of their July b, 2012
Memorandum which documents their decision that the wetland delineation remains unchanged
as a result of the re- evaluation. Under the USACE jurisdictional determination appeals process,
the re- evaluation finding and its entry into the administrative record is the final decision. The
USACE South Atlantic Division Appeals Review Officer confirmed this determination to the
USACE District in an e -mail on October 15, 2012 (Enclosure).
Based on the information presented above, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has
determined that the wetland delineations have been verified by the USACE. Please note that we
will also respond to your comments in the upcoming Record of Decision. If you have any
questions or need additional information regarding this project, please contact Mr. Felix Davila,
Preconstruction and Environment Engineer, at (919) 747 -7021 or felix.davila@dot,gov.
Sincerely,
For John F. Sullivan, Ill, P.E.
Division Administrator
Enclosure
cc: Eric Midkiff, PDEA NCDOT
IMR

CESAW-RG (1145b)
SAW-1995-00459
MEMORANDUM FOR COMMANDER, SOUTH ATLANTIC DIVISION
6 July 2012
SUBJECT: Re-Evaluation and Final District Decision on Approved Jurisdiction Determination
SAW- 1995 - 00459! Eddy O's Enterprises, Limited.
1. Reference is made to your 7 June 2012 Administrative Appeal Decision, whereby the
Approved Jurisdiction Determination (AJD) was remanded to the District for reconsideration and
re-evaluation. In your decision, you stated the following reason why the appeal has merit:
a. Because the appellant's property contained more than one community type, the
District did not correctly follow current regulatory criteria and associated guidance for identifying
and delineating wetlands when they used two sample points within a single disturbed
community to represent that of all the community types within the appellant's property.
2. To address the reasons for why you determined the appeal has merit, you requested the
District complete the following actions:
a. The district must adequately document how they characterized the hydrology,
vegetation and soils characteristics for each community type within the site, The administrative
record should be revised accordingly to document and reflect the factual data and this analysis.
3. On 2 July 2012, the District revisited the portion of appellant's property within the highway
project study area to re-evaluate the AJD and to document the hydrology, vegetation and soil
characteristics in each community type. Data from this field event were collected in accordance
with procedures outlined in the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual and the supporting Atlantic
Gulf Coastal Plain Supplement (to the 1987 Manual).
4. The District has completed its documentation and re-evaluation of the AJD associated with
the appellant's property, The wetland delineation remains unchanged as a result of the re-
evaluation, The District believes that the actions requested under #2a, above, have been
addressed.
I:••

77
P
5. The POC on this matter is Mr. Ronnie D. Smith, Project Manager. Mr. Smith can be
reached by phone at 910-251-4829, or by email at: [e-mail].
FILENAME: 20120705 SAWS Memo to the ARO - SAW-1 995-00459.doc.7a.doc
C ESAW- RG-L/S M I T H /aef
CES
-MA-ft ! J
AVE �V
If -
CES� W =R /FILE
STEVEN A. BAKER
Colonel, EN
Commanding
Enclosures
Copy Furnished:
Eddy O's Enterprises, LTD
Attn: Ms Lynne Stephens
717 West Dunlap 110
Phoenix, Arizona 85021
BCF:
CESAW-RG-L/SMITH
CESAW-RG-L/BETER
I=

Smith, Ronnie D SAW
From:
Snoith, Ronnie OSAVV
Sent:
Monday, October 15.2D12Q:45ANY
To:
Gbaele, Jason VVSAD; Carman, Elliott N Mr. GWD
Cu:
Beter, Dale ESAW
Subject:
RE: Eddy O's (UNGLA8S{FlEC)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Okay, Thanks. That answers my question,
Ronnie Smith
Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
Office: 9I0'251-4829
Fax: 9I8-251-4025
Website:
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public.
To help us ensure we continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey
located at our webaite at to complete the survey
online.
---QrL 'nal Message-----
From: Steele, Jason W SAD
Sent: Monday, October 15, 20I2 8:56 AM
To: Smith, Ronnie D SAW; Carman, Elliott N Mr. SW0
[c: 8eter, Dale E SAW
Subject: RE: Eddy D's (UNCLASSIFIED)
I'm not sure what you're asking. A final decision on the appeal was made June 7^ 2012
(Merit). The appeal decision had actions that were required of the District (SAW). The
District (SAW) issued their final decision (upheld) on July 6, 2812. No further action is
required from the District or SAD.
Jason W. Steele
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Regulatory Appeals Review Officer
68 Forsyth Street 5W
Suite 9M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Office: [phone]
Cell: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
— -0ri�ioaI Message---
From: Smith' Ronnie D SAW
Sent: Monday' October 15, 2012 8:52 AM
I
B.5|

To: Steele, Jason W SAD; Carman, Elliott N Mr. SWQ
Cc: 8eter, Dale E SAW
Subject: Eddy 0,s (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
3ason/ Has a final decision been made in regards to the Eddy O's 3D appeal? We have not seen
any correspondence since we responded to the remand.
Ronnie
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
2
B.52